Predicting structure and swelling of microgels with different crosslinker concentrations combining machine-learning with numerical simulations

Emanuela Zaccarelli; Susana Mar\'in-Aguilar

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Predicting structure and swelling of microgels with different crosslinker concentrations combining machine-learning with numerical simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single density profile can reveal a microgel's crosslinker concentration, crosslinker distribution, and full swelling behavior.

desk verdict A genuinely new ML pipeline for microgel structure prediction, but the universal claim outruns the evidence — worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.07482 v1 pith:ZAB4A5XK submitted 2025-02-11 cond-mat.soft

Susana Marín-Aguilar , Emanuela Zaccarelli This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.soft

keywords microgelspNIPAMmachinelearningautoencoderdensityprofilecrosslinkerdistributionswellingbehaviorvolumephasetransition

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 claims that the crosslinker concentration, the radial distribution of crosslinkers, and the full temperature-dependent swelling curve of a standard pNIPAM microgel can all be predicted from a single measurement: the total polymer density profile in the swollen state. This matters because crosslinker distributions have been experimentally inaccessible, and existing mean-field swelling theories require opaque free parameters. The authors train an autoencoder on simulated density profiles, extract a one-dimensional latent variable that follows a power law in crosslinker concentration, then use a neural network to predict crosslinker profiles and a fitted scaling law to reconstruct swelling. They validate against simulated microgels outside the training set and against experimental density profiles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-dimensional total density profile ρ(r), rescaled to a normalized radius r* = r/$N^{{1/3}}$ so that microgels of different sizes become comparable. An autoencoder compresses this 115-dimensional profile into a one-dimensional latent space; the latent value L is then inverted through a power law to give c. A separate neural network maps ρ(r) to the fuzzy-sphere fit of the crosslinker profile. The swelling law S(α,c) = h(α)$c^{{f(α)}}$ with logistic functions h(α) and f(α) then turns the predicted c into a full swelling curve. The fuzzy sphere model provides the analytic form used to fit both total and crosslinker profiles.

What would settle it

Synthesize or simulate two microgels that yield identical total radial density profiles but have measurably different crosslinker distributions; the paper's pipeline would assign them the same latent coordinate and the same predicted ρc, so any difference in the true crosslinker profiles would refute the central claim. Alternatively, experimentally image crosslinker positions, for example by super-resolution microscopy of fluorescently labeled crosslinkers, and compare the measured distribution with the neural network's prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the complete internal architecture of a standard pNIPAM microgel — crosslinker molar fraction c, the radial density profile of crosslinkers ρc(r), and the full swelling curve across the volume phase transition — is recoverable from a single input: the total polymer radial density profile ρ(r) of the swollen microgel. An autoencoder compresses ρ(r) into a one-dimensional latent coordinate L, which the authors find obeys L ≈ A0 $c^{0}$.59 with A0 ≈ 0.514, an exponent close to the theoretical good-solvent value for polymer chains; inverting this power law predicts c. A supervised neural network then maps ρ(r) to the fuzzy-sphere fit of ρc(r), and a phenomenological law S(α,c) = h(α)$c^{{f(α)}}$, with h and f logistic functions of the effective temperature α, yields the full swelling curve. Validation on simulated microgels of two sizes not used in training and on experimental density profiles from the literature gives agreement within the reported scatter.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the premise that the one-dimensional radial density profile of a microgel uniquely determines both its crosslinker concentration and the radial arrangement of crosslinkers; if two different architectures could share the same total profile, the whole prediction pipeline would fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any pNIPAM microgel whose swollen-state density profile is known, whether from small-angle scattering fits or super-resolution microscopy, can be assigned a crosslinker concentration without destructive chemical analysis.
Crosslinker radial distributions, which experiments cannot currently measure, become predictable quantities that can be compared with the fuzzy-sphere form.
The full deswelling curve follows from a single low-temperature profile, offering a parameter-free alternative to mean-field swelling fits.
The method transfers across microgel sizes (roughly 42,000 and 336,000 beads), with only a small shift in the latent variable.
On experimental profiles, the predicted crosslinker concentrations match the synthesis values within the reported uncertainty.

Reading between the lines

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

If the density profile is indeed a complete fingerprint of crosslinker architecture, the same latent representation could be inverted to design microgels with desired internal structure by specifying a target density profile.
The near-good-solvent exponent of the latent-space power law hints that the autoencoder coordinate might serve as a physically meaningful order parameter for network topology, beyond its role as a fitting device.
A decisive test would be direct imaging of labeled crosslinkers in experimental microgels; if measured crosslinker profiles deviate from the fuzzy-sphere predictions, the neural network's training target would need to be revised.
The same pipeline could in principle be retrained for other properties, such as charge distribution or elasticity, provided sufficiently diverse simulation data.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Read the microgel ML paper by Marín-Aguilar and Zaccarelli. My take: the core pipeline is novel and works within its own simulation model, but the sweeping claim about 'any standard microgel' is not yet supported by the evidence. The paper deserves a serious referee, not a desk reject.

What's actually new: they train an autoencoder on total density profiles ρ(r) of monomer-resolved microgels over a range of crosslinker concentrations c, and find a one-dimensional latent L that separates c almost perfectly, with L ~ c^0.59, close to the Flory exponent. That's a nice physical result. Then a simple NN maps ρ(r) to the crosslinker radial profile ρc(r), which is experimentally inaccessible, and it works for test c values within the model. Finally they propose a compact swelling law S(α,c) = h(α)c^{f(α)} with logistic α-dependence, which fits their simulations and some experimental swelling curves reasonably well. The paper is honest about the lack of experimental crosslinker measurements.

Now the soft spots, in order of severity. First, the identifiability premise: they claim ρ(r) alone determines c, ρc(r), and the swelling curve for any standard microgel. But the training data only vary c and total size N within a single simulation model. There's no argument or test showing that the mapping survives variations in crosslinker architecture, synthesis protocol, or polydispersity. If two microgels share the same ρ(r) but have different internal structure, the method silently fails. Second, the experimental validation in Fig 1(e) uses c = 1.25, 2.5, 5.0%, all of which are in the AE training set. Same for the NN in Fig 2(c) with c=5.0%. So the experiments are in-sample on c, not out-of-sample. Third, the predict-ρc step is trained on fuzzy-sphere fits of ρc and then validated against those same fits; agreement with raw simulation profiles is only qualitative. Fourth, the swelling law's collapsed-state reference α* is estimated from the experimental data later used for validation, so there's a whiff of circularity. And there's no code, data, or error bars, which makes independent checking harder.

None of these are fatal. They're addressable with out-of-sample tests on microgels synthesized with different recipes, more rigorous cross-validation, and artifact release. The central idea is sound and the simulation evidence is solid within its own domain. The paper is a useful proof-of-concept for the microgel and soft-colloid community, and I'd bring it to reading group. I would accept it for peer review, conditional on revisions that narrow the claims or extend the validation. I would not cite it as a general method yet, but I'd watch the follow-up.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. Marín-Aguilar and Zaccarelli combine molecular-dynamics simulations of monomer-resolved pNIPAM microgels at crosslinker concentrations c = 0.5–15% and two sizes (N ≈ 42,000 and 336,000) with two machine-learning stages. An autoencoder trained on density profiles at c = 1.25, 2.5, 5, and 12.5% maps each low-temperature total density profile ρ(r) to a one-dimensional latent variable L, calibrated as L̄(c) ≈ A0 c^ν. A supervised neural network with the same input predicts the crosslinker density profile ρc(r), trained against fuzzy-sphere fits. A phenomenological fit S(α, c) = h(α)c^{f(α)} with logistic α-dependent functions is proposed to reproduce simulated and experimental swelling curves. Validation includes simulation test concentrations (e.g., c = 7%), size transfer between N ≈ 42,000 and 336,000, and three experimental microgels from Ref. [14].

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would provide a practical route from routinely measured density profiles to crosslinker concentration, crosslinker distribution, and swelling behavior, where the crosslinker distribution is currently inaccessible experimentally. The simulation model is well described, the ML architecture choices are specified in detail, the latent exponent ν ≈ 0.59 is a nice physical consistency check, and the size-transfer test is a genuine strength. The paper also makes falsifiable predictions through Eqs. (1)–(2) and Table S2. However, the broad 'any standard microgel' claim is supported only within one simulation family plus experimental points at training concentrations; the identifiability and calibration issues below must be addressed before that conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Introduction (closing paragraph), Fig. 1(d)–(e), End Matter: Autoencoders] The central claim that 'any standard pNIPAM microgel' can be predicted from ρ(r) is not backed by a generalization test to unseen experimental conditions. The three experimental c values (1.25%, 2.5%, 5.0%) used in Fig. 1(e) are all in the AE training set, and the calibration L̄(c) = A0 c^ν is fitted to the same training c values. The simulation test set changes c within the same assembly model, so it does not test invariance to other structural degrees of freedom such as synthesis history, network topology, or corona imperfections. The latent dimension is chosen by reconstruction FVE in Fig. 1(c), not by an identifiability or invariance test. I therefore see no evidence that the map ρ(r) → (c, ρc(r)) is uniquely invertible outside the training family. Please provide a concrete identifiability check—for example, training on one architecture and testing on a differently assembled network, or perturbing ρ(r) with structural noise while holding c fixed—and include experimental c values outside the training set.
[End Matter, Eq. (9), and Fig. 3(d)] The definition S = RH(α)/RH(α* = 0.86) uses a collapsed-state reference that, according to the End Matter, is 'estimated from the experimental data of Ref. [14]'—the same experimental swelling data to which the final predictions are compared in Fig. 3(d). This makes the experimental swelling comparison partly circular. Please either determine α* from simulation alone or perform a sensitivity scan over α* and show that the predicted swelling curves and the quoted agreement are robust. In addition, the α-to-temperature mapping used to place the experimental points in Fig. 3(d) is not specified in the main text; this mapping is needed to judge the quality of the experimental comparison.
[Fig. 2 and End Matter: Neural Networks] The supervised neural network is trained to predict the fuzzy-sphere fit of ρc(r), not the raw simulation crosslinker profile; the End Matter states that 'we use the fuzzy sphere fits of ρc' as the feature to learn. The parity plot in Fig. 2(b) and the c = 7.0% comparison in Fig. 2(c) therefore validate regression to a smoothed functional form, not prediction of the raw crosslinker distribution. Given that the paper itself notes in the conclusion that experimental detection of ρc(t) 'remains a challenge,' the claim to predict the crosslinker distribution in experimental systems needs a quantitative check against raw ρc(r) from multiple independent topologies, including the noisy low-c cases for which Table S1 omits fit parameters.

minor comments (5)

[Autoencoder training paragraph] There is a typo: 'epocs' should be 'epochs'.
[Fig. 3(d) caption] The caption is incomplete ('S as a function for α'), and the mapping from simulation α to experimental temperature for the triangles of Ref. [14] is not defined in the main text.
[Fig. 1(e) text] The statement that AE predictions have a 'confidence value ranging from ±1% to ±10%' is not defined; please specify how this confidence interval is computed and what it represents.
[End Matter, Eq. (2)] The notation AX in Eq. (2) is ambiguous; clarify that the index X labels the function h or f and that the expression is applied component-wise.
[References] Reference [17] for the Supplemental Material is a placeholder URL (http://www.example.com/supplemental_material.pdf) with a placeholder access date; it should be updated to the actual link.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; one minor calibration of the collapsed-state reference on validation data.

fitted input called prediction [End Matter, Eq. 9 and Fig. 3(d)]
"Then, we calculate the α-dependent swelling ratio Sα, defined as Sα = RH(α)/RH(α∗ = 0.86), where RH(α∗ = 0.86) roughly corresponds to the hydrodynamic radius of the collapsed microgel at the effective temperature α∗ = 0.86. The latter is estimated from the experimental data of Ref. [14] and also from Fig. 3(c) where f (α∗) ∼ 0."

The swelling ratio used for validation is normalized by RH(α*) with α* estimated from the same experimental dataset of Ref. [14] against which the swelling predictions are compared in Fig. 3(d). Thus the collapsed-state scale of the predicted swelling curves is calibrated to the validation data, so agreement near α* is partly enforced rather than independently predicted. The shape of the swelling curve still comes from simulation-fitted h(α) and f(α), so this is a minor, partial calibration issue and not a wholesale reduction of the prediction to its input.

full rationale

The main derivation chain is not circular. The autoencoder is trained on simulated total density profiles without using crosslinker concentration labels, and the latent-to-concentration relation L̄(c) = A0 c^ν is an openly fitted calibration, not an identity: a new density profile is projected by the trained encoder and then inverted through this fitted curve. The supervised network for ρc(r) learns a mapping from total density profiles to fuzzy-sphere-fitted crosslinker profiles; the target is not derived from the input by construction, and the predictions are checked against simulation profiles outside the training set. The swelling model Eqs. 1-2 is a phenomenological fit to simulation data, and using it to evaluate experimental swelling curves is genuine forward evaluation. The main legitimate concerns are external-validity weaknesses rather than circularity: experimental c validation uses the same nominal concentrations present in the AE training set, and the collapsed-state reference α* is estimated from the experimental data later used for swelling validation. These weaken the strength of the 'any standard microgel' claim but do not make any central prediction equivalent to its inputs by definition. Self-citations, including Ref. [14] co-authored by one of the present authors, are normal reuse of an experimental dataset and of the authors' own validated simulation model; they are not load-bearing as an unverified uniqueness or derivation source.

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

The central claim rests on the simulation model, the sufficiency of density profiles, the fuzzy-sphere representation, and the α-temperature mapping, all of which are inputs from prior work or untested assumptions. The free parameters fitted to simulation data number at least ten (power-law amplitude and exponent, the two logistic functions with four parameters each, and the α* reference), plus machine-learning hyperparameters chosen by hand. No new physical entities are introduced; the latent variable L is an algorithmic construct, not a proposed physical quantity.

free parameters (6)

A0 (latent-concentration amplitude) = 0.514
Amplitude in L̄(c) = A0 c^ν, fitted to the mean latent-space values of the autoencoder for the training concentrations.
ν (latent-concentration exponent) = 0.59
Exponent in the same power-law relation, fitted to training data and interpreted as resembling the Flory exponent, but not derived.
h(α) logistic parameters A0, A1, A2, A3 = 2.26, -1.37, -0.58, 0.12
Four parameters fitting the amplitude h(α) of the swelling power law S = h(α)c^{f(α)} across the effective temperature α.
f(α) logistic parameters A0, A1, A2, A3 = -0.19, 0.19, -0.63, 0.074
Four parameters fitting the exponent f(α) of the swelling power law across α, with A1 ≈ 0.19 interpreted as the Flory-Rehner exponent.
α* (collapsed reference effective temperature) = 0.86
Reference value used to define the swelling ratio S = RH(α)/RH(α*); estimated from the experimental data of Ref. [14], which also serves as validation data.
ML hyperparameters (hidden sizes, learning rates, weight decay) = chosen by hand
Autoencoder hidden dimension 80, neural network hidden dimension 96, learning rates 0.01 and 0.1, weight decay λ = 1e-5; selected by architecture search, with no reported sensitivity analysis.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The monomer-resolved bead-spring model (WCA + FENE + solvophobic potential Uα) accurately represents real pNIPAM microgels.
All training and test data come from this model, which was introduced and validated in previous works by the same group (Refs. [4,10,20]). The present paper relies on its fidelity for the central claims.
domain assumption The fuzzy-sphere model adequately describes both the total and crosslinker density profiles.
Used to fit density profiles and to create smooth training targets for the neural network. The paper states crosslinker profiles are 'quite well-described' by the fuzzy sphere, but this is verified only in simulation, not in experiment.
domain assumption The one-dimensional radial total density profile contains sufficient information to determine c and ρc(r).
The entire ML pipeline is premised on this. No proof is given; the support is empirical agreement on simulated test sets and a few experimental profiles.
domain assumption The radial-coordinate rescaling r* = r/N^{1/3} makes density profiles transferable across microgel sizes.
Adopted to make the method scalable; tested for two microgel sizes (N ≈ 42000 and N ≈ 336000) but assumed to hold for all sizes.
domain assumption The effective temperature α maps approximately linearly to experimental temperature across the VPT.
Used to compare simulation swelling data to experimental temperature sweeps; the mapping is taken from Refs. [10,14], not derived in this paper.
domain assumption The collapsed-state reference α* = 0.86 is independent of crosslinker concentration and microgel size.
Used to define the swelling ratio S; estimated from experimental data of Ref. [14] and from the f(α) fit, and assumed universal across the systems tested.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Predicting structure and swelling of microgels with different crosslinker concentrations combining machine-learning with numerical simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZAB4A5XK

@misc{pith2026250207482,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Predicting structure and swelling of microgels with different crosslinker concentrations combining machine-learning with numerical simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZAB4A5XK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.07482}
}

read the original abstract

Microgels made of poly(N-isopropylacrylamide) are the prototype of soft, thermoresponsive particles widely used to study fundamental problems in condensed matter physics. However, their internal structure is far from homogeneous, and existing mean-field approaches, such as Flory-Rehner theory, provide only qualitative descriptions of their thermoresponsive behavior. Here, we combine machine learning and numerical simulations to accurately predict the concentration and spatial distribution of crosslinkers, the latter hitherto unknown experimentally, as well as the full swelling behavior of microgels, using only polymer density profiles. Our approach provides unprecedented insight into structural and thermodynamic properties of any standard microgel, including experimental ones.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.07482 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** (b), changing from a rather compact structure for c = 10% to a much more heterogeneous one for c = 0.5%, denoting the presence of so-called dangling ends in the exterior of the microgel. All density profiles are welldescribed by the fuzzy sphere model [12], as shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** (d) for different c values in comparison to simulation results and to the experimental data of Ref. [14]. We find very good agreement at all temperatures, with minor deviations close to the VPT, where experimental error bars are largest. Interestingly, once S(α) is known for example from DLS measurements, it can be used backwards to estimate c via Eq. 1, and then an approximate density profile, if not available ex… 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. Full citation record

Simulating dynamic bonding in soft materials
cond-mat.soft 2025-10 conditional

A review of molecular dynamics, Monte Carlo, and hybrid methods for simulating reversible (dissociative and associative) bonds in soft matter, with a software table and an outlook on open challenges.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[14]

Hazra, A

N. Hazra, A. Ninarello, A. Scotti, J. E. Houston, P. Mota- Santiago, E. Zaccarelli, and J. J. Crassous, Macro- molecules 57, 339 (2023)

work page 2023
[1]

M. Karg, A. Pich, T. Hellweg, T. Hoare, L. A. Lyon, J. Crassous, D. Suzuki, R. A. Gumerov, S. Schneider, I. I. Potemkin, et al., Langmuir 35, 6231 (2019)

work page 2019
[2]

Scotti, M

A. Scotti, M. F. Schulte, C. G. Lopez, J. J. Crassous, S. Bochenek, and W. Richtering, Chemical reviews 122, 11675 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

Otten, M

M. Otten, M. Hildebrandt, B. Pfeffing, V. C. Voigt, F. Scheffold, T. Hellweg, and M. Karg, Langmuir 40, 14515 (2024)

work page 2024
[4]

Del Monte, D

G. Del Monte, D. Truzzolillo, F. Camerin, A. Ninarello, E. Chauveau, L. Tavagnacco, N. Gnan, L. Rovigatti, S. Sennato, and E. Zaccarelli, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 118, e2109560118 (2021)

work page 2021
[5]

G. M. Conley, S. N¨ ojd, M. Braibanti, P. Schurtenberger, and F. Scheffold, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem- ical and Engineering Aspects 499, 18 (2016)

work page 2016
[6]

Schelling and J.-M

M. Schelling and J.-M. Meijer, Physical Review E 109, L062601 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Appel, B

J. Appel, B. F¨ olker, and J. Sprakel, Soft Matter12, 2515 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 30 references

[8]

P. J. Flory, Principles of polymer chemistry(Cornell uni- versity press, 1953)

1953
[9]

C. G. Lopez and W. Richtering, Soft Matter 13, 8271 (2017)

2017
[10]

Ninarello, J

A. Ninarello, J. J. Crassous, D. Paloli, F. Camerin, N. Gnan, L. Rovigatti, P. Schurtenberger, and E. Zac- carelli, Macromolecules 52, 7584 (2019)

2019
[11]

Camerin, M

F. Camerin, M. A. Ferna´ andez-Rodr ´ ıguez, L. Rovigatti, M.-N. Antonopoulou, N. Gnan, A. Ninarello, L. Isa, and E. Zaccarelli, ACS nano 13, 4548 (2019)

2019
[12]

Stieger, W

M. Stieger, W. Richtering, J. S. Pedersen, and P. Lindner, The Journal of chemical physics 120, 6197 (2004)

2004
[13]

Bergmann, O

S. Bergmann, O. Wrede, T. Huser, and T. Hellweg, Phys- ical Chemistry Chemical Physics 20, 5074 (2018)

2018
[15]

Kremer and G

K. Kremer and G. S. Grest, The Journal of Chemical Physics 92, 5057 (1990)

1990
[16]

Soddemann, B

T. Soddemann, B. D¨ unweg, and K. Kremer, The Euro- pean Physical Journal E 6, 409 (2001)

2001
[17]

Supplemental material, http://www.example.com/ supplemental_material.pdf, accessed: April 18, 2023

2023
[18]

J. A. Paulin, J. E. Lopez-Aguilar, B. Fouconnier, R. O. Vargas, and F. Lopez-Serrano, Polymer Bulletin , 1 (2021)

2021
[19]

Fern´ andez-Barbero, I

A. Fern´ andez-Barbero, I. J. Su´ arez, B. Sierra-Mart ´ ın, A. Fern´ andez-Nieves, F. J. de Las Nieves, M. Marquez, J. Rubio-Retama, and E. L´ opez-Cabarcos, Advances in colloid and interface science 147, 88 (2009)

2009
[20]

N. Gnan, L. Rovigatti, M. Bergman, and E. Zaccarelli, Macromolecules 50, 8777 (2017)

2017
[21]

A. P. Thompson, H. M. Aktulga, R. Berger, D. S. Bolin- tineanu, W. M. Brown, P. S. Crozier, P. J. In’t Veld, A. Kohlmeyer, S. G. Moore, T. D. Nguyen, et al., Com- puter Physics Communications 271, 108171 (2022)

2022
[22]

Scheffold, Soft Matter 20, 8181 (2024)

F. Scheffold, Soft Matter 20, 8181 (2024)

2024
[23]

Tschannen, O

M. Tschannen, O. Bachem, and M. Lucic, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05069 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[24]

Boattini, S

E. Boattini, S. Mar ´ ın-Aguilar, S. Mitra, G. Foffi, F. Smal- lenburg, and L. Filion, Nat. Comm. 11, 5479 (2020)

2020
[25]

Gurney, An introduction to neural networks (CRC press, 2018)

K. Gurney, An introduction to neural networks (CRC press, 2018)

2018
[26]

Paszke, S

A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al., Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

2019
[27]

Sharma, S

S. Sharma, S. Sharma, and A. Athaiya, Towards Data Sci 6, 310 (2017)

2017
[28]

Bishop, New York, USA (1995)

C. Bishop, New York, USA (1995)

1995
[29]

D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, na- ture 323, 533 (1986)

1986
[30]

Sutskever, J

I. Sutskever, J. Martens, G. Dahl, and G. Hinton, in International conference on machine learning (PMLR,

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [14]

Hazra, A

N. Hazra, A. Ninarello, A. Scotti, J. E. Houston, P. Mota- Santiago, E. Zaccarelli, and J. J. Crassous, Macro- molecules 57, 339 (2023)

work page 2023

[2] [1]

M. Karg, A. Pich, T. Hellweg, T. Hoare, L. A. Lyon, J. Crassous, D. Suzuki, R. A. Gumerov, S. Schneider, I. I. Potemkin, et al., Langmuir 35, 6231 (2019)

work page 2019

[3] [2]

Scotti, M

A. Scotti, M. F. Schulte, C. G. Lopez, J. J. Crassous, S. Bochenek, and W. Richtering, Chemical reviews 122, 11675 (2022)

work page 2022

[4] [3]

Otten, M

M. Otten, M. Hildebrandt, B. Pfeffing, V. C. Voigt, F. Scheffold, T. Hellweg, and M. Karg, Langmuir 40, 14515 (2024)

work page 2024

[5] [4]

Del Monte, D

G. Del Monte, D. Truzzolillo, F. Camerin, A. Ninarello, E. Chauveau, L. Tavagnacco, N. Gnan, L. Rovigatti, S. Sennato, and E. Zaccarelli, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences 118, e2109560118 (2021)

work page 2021

[6] [5]

G. M. Conley, S. N¨ ojd, M. Braibanti, P. Schurtenberger, and F. Scheffold, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochem- ical and Engineering Aspects 499, 18 (2016)

work page 2016

[7] [6]

Schelling and J.-M

M. Schelling and J.-M. Meijer, Physical Review E 109, L062601 (2024)

work page 2024

[8] [7]

Appel, B

J. Appel, B. F¨ olker, and J. Sprakel, Soft Matter12, 2515 (2016)

work page 2016