Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

Phase diagrams of polymer-containing liquid mixtures with a theory-embedded neural network

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A theory-embedded first layer gives a small neural network predictive power for polymer phase diagrams.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-concept for theory-embedded neural networks in polymer phase diagrams, but the predictive-power claims outrun the generative models behind the training labels. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05789 v3 pith:GPZAJJ67 submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech

Issei Nakamura This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.dis-nncond-mat.stat-mech
keywords phasediagrampolymersolutiondiblockcopolymermeltblockelectrolytedeepneuralnetworktheory-embeddedlayerFlory-Hugginstheorymicrophaseseparation
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 argues that a deep neural network can reproduce and extrapolate the phase behavior of polymer-containing liquid mixtures because its first hidden layer is built from thermodynamic theory rather than learned from data. This layer encodes three physical features: the entropy/enthalpy balance of mixing, the chain-length asymmetry that shifts critical points, and the interfacial-width scaling that controls ordering in block copolymer melts. With this layer, a three-layer network of only three, ten, and two neurons can classify disordered, macroscopically phase-separated, lamellar, gyroid, hexagonal, and body-centered-cubic states while being trained by a random search of weights instead of gradient descent. The payoff is a computationally cheap way to interpolate and extrapolate phase diagrams from sparse data, including suggesting where unobserved phases such as gyroid should appear.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the theory-embedded first hidden layer, a set of three feature functions chosen per system. For polymer solutions the layer uses the Flory-Huggins entropy ratio $f_1 = \phi\ln\phi/[(1-\phi)\ln(1-\phi)]$, the inverse chain length $f_2 = 1/N$, and the enthalpic term $f_3 = \chi\phi(1-\phi)$. For block copolymer melts it uses $f_1 = \phi\ln\phi + (1-\phi)\ln(1-\phi)$, $f_2 = \chi\phi(1-\phi)$, and the interfacial width $f_3 = (N\chi)^{-1/2}$; for salt-doped melts, $f_1 = r\ln r$, $f_2 = 15r$ (the Born solvation-energy form), and $f_3 = [N(\chi+r)]^{-1/2}$. These features feed two rectified linear unit (ReLU) layers, and the output is a Gaussian function whose value is binned into phase types. The layer does the work of turning physical knowledge into signals, which is why random searches of the weights can converge with tiny networks; the paper notes that the design is not unique and becomes heuristic when applied to new problems.

What would settle it

Compare the trained network's extrapolated boundaries to independent measurements or self-consistent field calculations for a system not used in training, for example a polymer solution with $N=10$ or $N=100$, or the salt-doped gyroid window near $r=0.05$ at $T=130^\circ$C. If the mismatch is as large as the few-percent training error, the extrapolation is an artifact of the theory labels rather than a physical prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a theory-embedded first hidden layer, built from coarse-grained mean-field theory and scaling laws, substantially enhances the accuracy of the deep neural network and gives it predictive power for phase diagrams. The paper establishes this by ablation: when the physically motivated features are replaced by generic alternatives such as $\phi$, $N$, and $\chi$ directly, random searches of the weights never succeed (0% success rate), whereas the intact layer succeeds in 8.7% of runs for polymer solutions and 0.23% for block copolymer melts, producing relative errors below 5% on the test sets. The author then shows that, once trained below $\chi=3$ for polymer solutions or $\chi=0.3$ for melts, the network extrapolates accurately to larger $\chi$, to chain lengths $N=10$ and $100$, and in the salt-doped diblock case to regions where training data were sparse or absent. In particular, a network trained without any gyroid data points, but with physically expected high-temperature and high-salt limiting behavior added as regularization, predicts a gyroid window near the location observed experimentally, and similar regularization predicts hexagonal cylinder phases at high salt loading.

Load-bearing premise

The network's predictive power is only as sound as the simplified Flory-Huggins and Landau theory labels and the single salt-doped experimental data set used for training; if those do not capture real phase behavior, the network will faithfully reproduce their errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A compact three-layer network can reproduce phase diagrams for polymer solutions and block copolymer melts without solving the underlying theory equations after training.
  • Because training uses random searches of weights rather than backpropagation, the approach runs on ordinary workstations and is accessible to non-specialists.
  • Adding physically motivated limiting-case data points (high-temperature disorder, high-salt dilution) acts as regularization that lets the network predict unobserved ordered phases such as gyroid.
  • The architecture can be carried over to inverse problems in soft-matter physics, such as inferring chain length or composition from a target phase.
  • The output phase types must be known in advance and the feature functions chosen by hand for each new class of phase behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One design lesson the author leaves implicit: a physics-informed first layer should encode qualitative scalings and entropy/enthalpy competition even when the functional forms are rough, and the same trick could be tried for other soft-matter phase diagrams with known mean-field scalings.
  • The reported success rate for the salt-doped network has a discontinuous slope at 7.5% relative error; the author does not analyze it, but it hints at a sharp transition in the landscape of the random-search problem that could be studied directly.
  • The extrapolated predictions for $N=10$ and $100$ and for $\chi>3$ are extrapolations of the Flory-Huggins spinodal and the Landau theory labels, not independent experimental measurements; a natural next step is to train on the same theory labels and validate against measured cloud points or self-consistent field calculations.
  • The salt-doped section suggests a practical workflow: train on limited phase labels plus known thermodynamic limits, then use the network to propose candidate phase regions for targeted experiments, as with the predicted gyroid window near $[\mathrm{Li}^+]/[\mathrm{EO}]=0.05$ at $T=130^\circ\mathrm{C}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a three-layer deep neural network with a 'theory-embedded' first hidden layer for predicting phase diagrams of polymer solutions and diblock copolymer melts. The first layer receives hand-crafted features derived from Flory-Huggins theory, scaling laws, and Born solvation arguments; the output layer evaluates a Gaussian function whose value is thresholded into phase labels. Weights are optimized by random search without backpropagation. The paper reports high accuracy on test sets for polymer solutions (Flory-Huggins spinodals for N=1,30 and extrapolated N=10,100), for salt-free melts (Landau-theory phase boundaries for N=100, chi<=0.3 extrapolated to chi=3), and for salt-doped PEO-b-PS melts using experimental data from Wanakule et al. The main claimed contributions are that the theory-embedded layer substantially improves accuracy relative to alternative feature patterns, speeds up random search, and gives the DNN predictive power for phase behavior.

Significance. If the central claim were fully established, the paper would offer a useful surrogate-model strategy: a compact network that reproduces and extrapolates thermodynamic phase behavior without solving full field-theoretic or simulation problems. The paper contains some genuinely useful ingredients: explicit feature construction from mean-field thermodynamics, a random-search optimization that avoids backpropagation, and a demonstration that the feature set strongly affects trainability (success rates of 8.7% vs 0% for polymer solutions, 0.23% vs 0% for melts). The salt-doped section is commendable for using experimental labels. However, the significance is considerably tempered by the fact that for polymer solutions and salt-free melts the 'test' data are generated by the very theories used to construct the features and labels, so the reported agreement largely demonstrates internal consistency with a chosen model rather than predictive power for real systems. The extrapolation in the salt-free melt case crosses into a regime where the Landau theory is known to be unreliable, and no independent SCFT or experimental benchmark is provided.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (1) and Figure 2] The evaluation of predictive power for polymer solutions is circular. The training and test labels are both computed from the Flory-Huggins free energy, and the features f1, f2, f3 in Eq. (1) are the entropy ratio, 1/N, and chi*phi(1-phi) terms of that same free energy. The DNN's agreement with test datasets for N=10 and N=100 and for chi>3 therefore demonstrates only that the network can extrapolate the Flory-Huggins model itself; it does not demonstrate predictive power for the phase behavior of real polymer solutions. To support the abstract's claim, the author should provide a comparison with experimental phase diagrams or with a more accurate theory (e.g., SCFT) in at least one polymer-solution system.
  2. [Section 3, Figure 3] The salt-free melt extrapolation from chi<=0.3 to chi=3 is the sharpest manifestation of the circularity problem. Training data have chi*N <= 30, while predictions are claimed up to chi*N = 300. The Landau expansion used to generate the labels is a weak-segregation approximation controlled only near the order-disorder transition; at chi*N ~ 300 the phase boundaries, especially those involving GYR, are not expected to be quantitatively reliable. Because the test dataset is generated by the same Landau theory, the reported 3.84% relative error confirms that the DNN fits its training labels, not that the predicted DIS/BCC/HEX/GYR/LAM boundaries are those of actual diblock copolymer melts. An independent test against SCFT or experimental phase boundaries in the strong-segregation regime is required before predictive power can be claimed.
  3. [Section 4, Figure 4 and Table I] The salt-doped melt analysis is the only section with experimental labels, but its claims are weakened by the construction of the features and the regularization procedure. The coefficients a=15 and b=1 in Eqs. (4)-(5) are chosen from prior theory and are stated not to affect optimization speed substantially, yet no systematic scan or uncertainty quantification is given for their effect on the predicted phase boundaries. The regularizing data points from the two limiting cases (DIS at high temperature, DIS at high salt loading) explicitly encode the expected answer, so the subsequent 'prediction' of GYR and HEX is partly a consequence of these imposed constraints rather than purely emergent network behavior. In addition, the comparison with the experimental diagram in Figure 4(a) is qualitative, with no error bars or distance metric; the discontinuity in the success-rate curve at 7.5% error is reported without explanation. The author should provide quantitative agreement measures and a sensitivity analysis with respect to a, b, and the regularizing points.
  4. [Section 2, success-rate comparisons] The success-rate comparison (8.7% for the intact form vs 0% for patterns 1 and 2) is presented as evidence that the theory-embedded layer 'substantially enhances' accuracy, but the rates depend on the termination criterion (2 million trials, 8% threshold) and on the chosen alternative features. A 0% success rate over 20000 runs for patterns 1 and 2 does not exclude the possibility that these patterns could succeed with a different random-search schedule or a modified network size. To make the comparison robust, the author should report the distribution of final errors rather than a binary success rate, and should show that the advantage persists across different search budgets and initialization schemes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract states 'This study also presents the predictive power' but does not qualify that for the solution and salt-free melt cases the predictions are for theory-generated labels; please clarify the scope in the abstract and conclusions.
  2. [Section 2, Eq. (1)] In Eq. (1), f2 is written as 1/N but the text later discusses 'the chain length of polymers' and uses N=1,10,30,100; please define N consistently (degree of polymerization versus chain length) and state whether N is dimensionless and unitless.
  3. [Section 2, Figure 2] The figure caption mentions 'strip' structures in the y-direction, but it is unclear what the y-axis represents in each panel; please label axes explicitly and define the color regions (black vs white) in the caption.
  4. [Section 3, Figure 3] The phase diagram panels would be clearer if the training region (chi <= 0.3) were visually distinguished from the extrapolated region (chi > 0.3), and if the Landau-theory phase boundaries were overlaid on the DNN data points; currently the reader must infer the comparison from the text.
  5. [Section 4, Figure 4] Please provide the experimental data points with error bars in Fig. 4(a) and state the source of each data point; the qualitative agreement in Fig. 4(b) would be much more convincing with a quantitative measure such as the fraction of correctly classified grid points or a confusion matrix.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The polymer-solution and salt-free-melt 'predictions' are surrogate reproductions of the same Flory-Huggins/Landau theory that supplies both the theory-embedded features and the training/test labels.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2, Eq. (1), training-data paragraph and Fig. 2]
    "We provide the training and test datasets for the phase behavior using the Flory-Huggins theory as follows: We calculate the free energy 𝐹 = 𝜙/𝑁 ln(𝜙) + (1 − 𝜙) ln(1 − 𝜙) + 𝜒𝜙(1 − 𝜙) and collect the information of whether polymer solutions phase separate or not (i.e., a “yes/no” data type) by calculating spinodal curves using 𝐹. ... The DNN also predicts the phase behaviors for 𝑁 = 10 and 100 remarkably accurately."

    The theory-embedded first-layer features (the entropic ratio, 1/𝑁, and 𝜒𝜙(1−𝜙)) are the separate terms of the same Flory-Huggins free energy that generates every training and test label in this section. The DNN is fitted to Flory-Huggins spinodals for 𝑁 = 1 and 30 and then 'predicts' 𝑁 = 10 and 100, but those test labels are also computed from the same free energy. The reported agreement therefore reduces to the DNN reproducing its own generative theory; it is not an independent test of physical predictive power for polymer solutions.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3, Eq. (3), training/test dataset paragraph and Fig. 3]
    "The training and test datasets for the phase behavior were produced using the Landau theory of microphase separation developed by Leibler [35] and Hamley and Podneks [36]. ... The training dataset consists of 365 data points equally spaced in 0 ≤ 𝜙 ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ 𝜒 ≤ 0.3. ... The predictions of the DNN in 0.3 < 𝜒 ≤ 3 are remarkably consistent with the test dataset."

    The melt feature layer is built from the same coarse-grained mean-field ingredients, entropic and enthalpic terms and the (𝑁𝜒)^−0.5 interfacial-width scaling, that underlie the Landau labels used for both training and testing. Thus the agreement above 𝜒 = 0.3 merely shows that the DNN can emulate the Landau theory's own phase boundaries, including at 𝜒𝑁 ≈ 300 where the weak-segregation expansion is not quantitatively controlled. No independent SCFT or experimental benchmark is supplied for these predictions, so the claimed predictive power for salt-free melts is an internal extrapolation of the label-generating theory.

full rationale

The paper's internal demonstration that the theory-embedded layer improves optimization success and reduces relative error is self-contained and not circular: the intact feature set succeeds where alternative feature sets fail, and the reported errors quantify how well the DNN fits its training labels. However, the paper repeatedly frames this emulation as independent 'predictive power.' In the polymer-solution and salt-free-melt sections, both the features and all training/test labels derive from the same theory (Flory-Huggins or Landau), so the extrapolated predictions reduce to interpolation or extrapolation of that theory's own phase boundaries. The salt-doped section is different: it uses experimental labels and, without training on GYR data, predicts GYR in a region consistent with experiment, which is genuine external content and keeps the paper from being fully circular. Weighing the two theory-internal 'prediction' sections against the experimental salt-doped benchmark, the paper is partially circular rather than wholly so.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model rests on the validity of Flory-Huggins and Landau theories used to generate training labels, on a scaling law and solvation-energy estimates used to build the feature layer, and on three hand-set constants (a, b, output thresholds). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Born solvation coefficient a = 15
    Chosen by hand for f2 = a r in salt-doped melts (Section 4), based on the statement that a is on the order of 10 from Born solvation energy; varied from 1 to 100 without affecting optimization speed.
  • Effective Flory parameter slope b = 1
    Used in chi_eff = chi + b r (Section 4); taken from prior experiments and theory (refs 9,37,38) indicating b is on the order of unity.
  • DNN weights and biases = not reported
    All hidden-layer weights and biases are fitted by random search (Sections 2-4); exact values are not reported, so the trained model cannot be recreated exactly.
  • Output phase thresholds = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
    Heuristic assignment of Gaussian output ranges to DIS/BCC/HEX/GYR/LAM in Section 3; the paper notes no inconvenience but gives no principled basis.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flory-Huggins mean-field theory correctly describes spinodal phase separation of polymer solutions.
    Used to generate all training and test labels for Section 2 and to motivate f1, f2, f3.
  • domain assumption Landau theory of Leibler and Hamley-Podneks correctly describes the ordered phases of diblock copolymer melts.
    Used to generate training and test labels for Section 3.
  • domain assumption Interfacial width of ordered block copolymer structures scales as (N chi)^-0.5.
    Embedded as f3 in Section 3, citing Helfand and Tagami [34].
  • domain assumption For salt-doped melts, (chi_eff - chi) is proportional to r and Born solvation energy scales as r.
    Embedded as f1 and f2 with a=15 and b=1 in Section 4, based on refs [9,37,38].
  • domain assumption Random search without backpropagation can find weights that minimize the discrete loss.
    The entire training procedure relies on this empirical claim; no proof or convergence guarantee is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phase diagrams of polymer-containing liquid mixtures with a theory-embedded neural network." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPZAJJ67

@misc{pith2026190805789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phase diagrams of polymer-containing liquid mixtures with a theory-embedded neural network},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPZAJJ67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05789}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a deep neural network (DNN) that accounts for the phase behaviors of polymer-containing liquid mixtures. The key component in the DNN consists of a theory-embedded layer that captures the characteristic features of the phase behavior via coarse-grained mean-field theory and scaling laws and substantially enhances the accuracy of the DNN. Moreover, this layer enables us to reduce the size of the DNN for the phase diagrams of the mixtures. This study also presents the predictive power of the DNN for the phase behaviors of polymer solutions and salt-free and salt-doped diblock copolymer melts.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    G. H. Fredrickson, The equilibrium theory of inhomogeneous polymers (Oxford University Press, 2006)

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    Hansen and I

    J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald, Theory of simple liquids : with applications of soft matter (Elsevier / Academic Press, Amstersdam, 2013), Fourth edition. edn

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Nakamura and Z.-G

    I. Nakamura and Z.-G. Wang, ACS Macro Lett. 3, 708 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    Nakamura, J

    I. Nakamura, J. C. Shock, L. Eggart, and T. Gao, Isr J Chem 58, 1 (2018)

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Shojaei-Zadeh, J

    S. Shojaei-Zadeh, J. F. Morris, A. Couzis, and C. Maldarelli, J Colloid Interf Sci 363, 25 (2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [6]

    Kietzke, D

    T. Kietzke, D. Neher, M. Kumke, O. Ghazy, U. Ziener, and K. Landfester, Small 3, 1041 (2007)

    work page 2007

  7. [7]

    R. B. Thompson, V. V. Ginzburg, M. W. Matsen, and A. C. Balazs, Science 292, 2469 (2001)

    work page 2001

  8. [8]

    J. M. Virgili, M. L. Hoarfrost, and R. A. Segalman, Macromolecules 43, 5417 (2010)

    work page 2010

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    N. S. Wanakule, J. M. Virgili, A. A. Teran, Z.-G. Wang, and N. P. Balsara, Macromolecules 43, 8282 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    P. M. Simone and T. P. Lodge, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 1, 2812 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    LeCun, Y

    Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, Nature 521, 436 (2015)

    2015

  4. [12]

    M. S. Jorgensen, H. L. Mortensen, S. A. Meldgaard, E. L. Kolsbjerg, T. L. Jacobsen, K. H. Sorensen, and B. Hammer, J. Chem. Phys. 151, 054111 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    Ibric, M

    S. Ibric, M. Jovanovic, Z. Djuric, J. Parojcic, L. Solomun, and B. Lucic, J Pharm Pharmacol 59, 745 (2007)

    2007

  6. [14]

    Degim, J

    T. Degim, J. Hadgraft, S. Ilbasmis, and Y. Ozkan, J Pharm Sci 92, 656 (2003)

    2003

  7. [15]

    Pilania, C

    G. Pilania, C. C. Wang, X. Jiang, S. Rajasekaran, and R. Ramprasad, Sci Rep-UK 3 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    B. S. Rem, N. Käming, M. Tarnowski, L. Asteria, Nick Fläschner, C. Becker, K. Sengstock, and C. Weitenberg, Nat Phys 15, 917 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    E. P. L. van Nieuwenburg, Y. H. Liu, and S. D. Huber, Nat Phys 13, 435 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    C. D. Li, D. R. Tan, and F. J. Jiang, Ann Phys-New York 391, 312 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Q. S. Wei, R. G. Melko, and J. Z. Y. Chen, Physical Review E 95 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    M. Gao, L. T. Yin, and J. C. Ning, Atmos Environ 184, 129 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Esteva, B

    A. Esteva, B. Kuprel, R. A. Novoa, J. Ko, S. M. Swetter, H. M. Blau, and S. Thrun, Nature 542, 115 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    T. J. Brinker et al., J Med Internet Res 20 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    S. Dai, B. G. Sumpter, and D. W. Noid, J Phase Equilib 16, 493 (1995)

    1995

  16. [24]

    C. J. Richardson, A. Mbanefo, R. Aboofazeli, M. J. Lawrence, and D. J. Barlow, J Colloid Interf Sci 187, 296 (1997)

    1997

  17. [25]

    Djekic, S

    L. Djekic, S. Ibric, and M. Primorac, International Journal of Pharmaceutics 361, 41 (2008)

    2008

  18. [26]

    Agatonovic-Kustrin and R

    S. Agatonovic-Kustrin and R. G. Alany, Pharmaceut Res 18, 1049 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Agatonovic-Kustrin, B

    S. Agatonovic-Kustrin, B. D. Glass, M. H. Wisch, and R. G. Alany, Pharmaceut Res 20, 1760 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    R. G. Alany, S. Agatonovic-Kustrin, T. Rades, and I. G. Tucker, J Pharmaceut Biomed 19, 443 (1999)

    1999

  21. [29]

    Mendyk and R

    A. Mendyk and R. Jachowicz, Expert Syst Appl 32, 1124 (2007)

    2007

  22. [30]

    Agatonovic-Kustrin, D

    S. Agatonovic-Kustrin, D. W. Morton, and R. Singh, Colloid Surface A 415, 59 (2012)

    2012

  23. [31]

    Bergstra and Y

    J. Bergstra and Y. Bengio, J Mach Learn Res 13, 281 (2012)

    2012

  24. [32]

    Doi, Introduction to polymer physics (Clarendon, 1996, Oxford, 1995)

    M. Doi, Introduction to polymer physics (Clarendon, 1996, Oxford, 1995)

    1996

  25. [33]

    M. D. Rubinstein and R. H. Colby, Polymer physics (Oxford University Press, Oxford ; New York, N.Y., 2003). 8

    2003

  26. [34]

    Helfand and Y

    E. Helfand and Y. Tagami, J. Chem. Phys. 56, 3592 (1972)

    1972

  27. [35]

    Leibler, Macromolecules 13, 1602 (1980)

    L. Leibler, Macromolecules 13, 1602 (1980)

    1980

  28. [36]

    I. W. Hamley and V. E. Podneks, Macromolecules 30, 3701 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    W. S. Young, J. N. L. Albert, A. B. Schantz, and T. H. Epps, Macromolecules 44, 8116 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Nakamura, N

    I. Nakamura, N. P. Balsara, and Z. -G. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 198301 (2011)

    2011

  31. [39]

    Schmidhuber, Neural Networks 61, 85 (2015)

    J. Schmidhuber, Neural Networks 61, 85 (2015)

    2015

  32. [40]

    J. F. Li, H . D. Mang, and J. Z. Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019). 9

    2019

Pith tools

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