Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 44 references

Dynamically derived morphology from the recurrence patterns of close binary stars using Kepler data

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A parameter derived from recurrence patterns — called DDM — classifies close binary stars by their nonlinear dynamics, capturing information that folded-light-curve morphology misses.

desk verdict The paper reports a real correlation between a new RQA-derived parameter and morphology on 1237 Kepler close binaries, but the '70% classification' claim in the conclusion has no supporting analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04111 v2 pith:F4DY5DOP submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.SR

Anisha R. V. Kashyap , D. Pawar , R. Misra , G. Ambika , Sandip V George This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords closebinarystarsrecurrencequantificationanalysisKeplereclipsingbinariesnonlineartimeseriesstellarmorphologyclassificationdeterminismentropylightcurve
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 proposes a new way to classify close binary stars that goes beyond the shape of the folded light curve. By reconstructing the underlying dynamics from Kepler light curves with time-delay embedding and quantifying recurrence patterns, the authors define a Dynamically Derived Morphology (DDM) parameter from two recurrence measures, Determinism and Entropy. They apply it to 1,237 close binaries from the revised Kepler Eclipsing Binary Catalog and find DDM is inversely correlated with the standard morphology parameter (Spearman rho = -0.32), meaning it carries complementary dynamical information. The paper argues that DDM can separate stars with similar folded light curves but different nonlinear dynamics, and that it can be automated for large surveys.

What carries the argument

The central object is the DET-ENT plane and the DDM parameter defined as an arc length along the best-fit curve through it. Determinism (DET) measures the fraction of recurrent points forming diagonal lines in the recurrence plot, and Entropy (ENT) measures the spread of diagonal line lengths; both are computed from recurrence plots of time-delay-embedded light curves (embedding dimension m=4, threshold epsilon=0.16). The fitted curve f(x) = 1/(1+((x+k)/x0)^(-$\alpha$)) plays the role of a one-dimensional skeleton onto which each binary's dynamics is projected, and the projection point's distance along the skeleton is the classification score.

What would settle it

Compute DDM for the same 1,237 stars with per-system embedding parameters (FNN dimension and threshold tied to recurrence rate), and check whether the inverse correlation with the morphology parameter and the separation between classes survive; alternatively, run the pipeline on phase-randomized surrogate light curves, and if DDM separates real data and surrogates equally well, the parameter is not capturing nonlinear dynamics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the recurrence structure of a close binary's light curve encodes its nonlinear dynamics, and that this structure can be compressed into a single scalar — the DDM parameter — that offers an alternative to morphology classification. Plotting all binaries on the Determinism-Entropy plane reveals a tight one-dimensional curve; DDM is the arc length along this curve from the origin to the point closest to the system's (ENT, DET) coordinates, after a robust fit with the functional form f(x) = 1/(1+((x+k)/x0)^(-$\alpha$)) with best-fit x0=9.99, k=8.75, $\alpha$=22.28. The authors show DDM values are distributed differently across the standard morphology classes and correlate inversely with the morphology parameter, concluding that the method 'can classify stellar binary systems based solely on the nonlinear parameters' and 'classify up to ≈70% of the binary systems.'

Load-bearing premise

The preprocessing steps and the globally fixed embedding parameters (dimension 4 and threshold 0.16) are assumed to extract the intrinsic nonlinear dynamics of each star, so that differences in DDM reflect astrophysical differences rather than artifacts of the uniform pipeline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • DDM can be computed automatically from roughly 3,000-point segments, making it scalable to millions of light curves from TESS and future surveys.
  • Since it is only weakly correlated with the standard morphology parameter, combining DDM with folded-light-curve morphology should sharpen class boundaries and reveal subpopulations.
  • Stars sharing nearly identical folded light curves but different DDM values would be prime targets for follow-up study of the physical mechanisms (spots, mass transfer, tidal deformation) driving the nonlinear variability.
  • The arc-length construction defines a continuous, ordered dynamical scale, not just discrete classes, which could be mapped to physical parameters if calibrated on systems with known masses and fill-out factors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the DET-ENT curve is universal across close binary types, DDM could be estimated from short segments of a light curve, enabling quick-look classification of faint or sparsely sampled sources; the paper does not test this explicitly.
  • The 70% classification claim appears to rest on the correlation strength and distribution separation rather than on a formal classifier with cross-validation; a direct supervised test against labeled classes would quantify accuracy more rigorously.
  • The fixed threshold epsilon=0.16, borrowed from X-ray binary studies, may not be optimal for all Kepler light curves; testing the robustness of DDM to epsilon and segment length would tell whether the parameter is truly measuring dynamics or partly measuring noise level.
  • A natural extension is to use DDM as a feature in multi-parameter classification and to connect it to independently measured dynamical indicators like eclipse timing variations or the O'Connell effect amplitude.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new parameter, the Dynamically Derived Morphology (DDM), computed from recurrence quantification analysis of Kepler light curves of 1237 close binary stars from the revised Kepler Eclipsing Binary Catalog. The DDM is defined by fitting a functional form to the DET–ENT plane and taking the arc length along the fitted curve. The authors report a Spearman correlation of ρ = −0.32 with the standard morphology parameter c and claim that DDM offers an alternate classification scheme for close binary stars and can classify up to ≈70% of the systems. The manuscript does not present a classification rule, a validation test, or an accuracy measurement.

Significance. If validated, a morphology parameter derived from nonlinear recurrence measures would be a useful complement to folded-light-curve morphology, particularly for large time-domain surveys, because the method uses only ~3000-point segments and is computationally efficient. However, the current manuscript stops at a correlation result; the central classification claim is not supported by any classifier, accuracy metric, or out-of-sample test. The paper also does not test its own headline promise that DDM distinguishes stars with similar folded light curves but different dynamics. The idea is promising, but the evidence in this draft is insufficient to establish it.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4 (Conclusion)] The statement that the method can 'classify up to ≈70% of the binary systems' is unsupported by any analysis in the manuscript. Section 3 reports only a Spearman correlation; no decision rule, no thresholds on DDM, no training/test split, no confusion matrix, and no comparison with the Matijevič et al. (2012) classifier appear anywhere. The 70% figure should either be removed or replaced by a description of an actual classification experiment and its validated accuracy.
  2. [§2.3 and Figure 4] The DDM parameter is defined by fitting Eq. (6) to the full 1237-star ENT–DET sample and then projecting each star onto that fitted curve, so the DDM values are in-sample by construction. Consequently, the correlation with c reported in Section 3 is not an independent validation of the parameter. The abstract's claim that DDM is 'expected to distinguish between stars with similar folded light curves' is never operationally tested: no subset of stars with similar folded light curves is identified, and no comparison of DDM values within such a subset is shown. An out-of-sample or hold-out analysis is needed to support the classification claim.
  3. [§2.1 and §2.2] The preprocessing pipeline is incompletely specified: the Savitzky-Golay filter window length and polynomial order, and the rolling-average window size, are not given, although the text says these are applied. DET and ENT are known to depend on smoothing and on embedding parameters (m, τ, ε). The paper should state all preprocessing parameters and include a sensitivity analysis showing that DDM values and the correlation with c are stable under reasonable variations in m, ε, segment length, and smoothing parameters.
  4. [§3, Table 1] The reported DET and ENT distributions overlap substantially across the three morphology bins (e.g., DET mean 0.75, 0.53, 0.55 with standard deviations around 0.2–0.24), so the modest ρ = −0.32 does not establish that DDM separates the classes. The paper should report a quantitative separation metric between the DDM distributions of the three bins (e.g., classification accuracy, overlap coefficient, or mutual information) to support the claim that DDM is a useful classifier.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1] The text uses 'Taken’s delay embedding method'; this should be 'Takens’ delay embedding method' (Takens 1981).
  2. [§3] The statement that 'the coefficient of variability (CV) is lowest for the DET and ENT measures' is not consistently supported by Table 1: in the 0.5–0.7 bin, LAM has a lower CV (0.25) than both DET (0.29) and ENT (0.33). Please qualify or correct this claim.
  3. [§2.1] The phrase 'modules from Kaggle' is vague; please specify exactly which code or modules were used, or remove the reference.
  4. [§2.2] The threshold ε = 0.16 is set globally for all systems; even after uniform-deviate transformation, a fixed ε may not be appropriate across light curves with different dynamical ranges, and a brief justification or a test of ε sensitivity would strengthen the analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: DDM is a new RQA-based parameter; the correlation with morphology is empirical, and the unsupported 70% claim is a validation gap, not a tautology.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. DDM is defined by fitting Eq. (6) to the (ENT, DET) values of 1237 close binaries and then assigning each star the arc length to its projection on the fitted curve. This is a descriptive reparameterization of two RQA measures; it does not use the morphology parameter c in the fit, so the reported Spearman correlation (rho = -0.32) between DDM and c is an empirical association, not a built-in equivalence. No equation in the paper defines DDM in terms of c, and no statement asserts that DDM predicts c from data that were used to define it. The main weakness is that the conclusion's 'classify up to ≈70% of the binary systems' is not supported by any classification analysis in Sections 2-3; no classifier, thresholds, train/test split, or accuracy calculation appears. That is a missing validation, not a circular step. The only self-referential elements are (i) the motivation citing George et al. (2019, 2020) for nonlinearity of close binaries, and (ii) the choice ε=0.16 from Jacob et al. (2018), a paper with overlapping authorship, used for the recurrence threshold. Both are parameter/motivation choices rather than load-bearing theorems; the correlation result would remain a defined empirical quantity even if ε were varied. Hence the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central construct, DDM, rests on a set of fitted parameters and ad hoc choices: the functional form in Eq. 6, the fixed embedding parameters, and the arc-length projection. No free parameter is derived from first principles; all are chosen to describe the same dataset. The only external benchmark is the Spearman correlation with the existing morphology parameter.

free parameters (7)
  • x0 (fit parameter in Eq. 6) = 9.99
    Fitted to the ENT-DET distribution of all 1237 binaries via robust regression; used to define DDM.
  • k (fit parameter in Eq. 6) = 8.75
    Fitted to the ENT-DET distribution; defines the curve along which DDM is measured.
  • alpha (fit parameter in Eq. 6) = 22.28
    Fitted to the ENT-DET distribution; controls the sharpness of the fitted curve.
  • epsilon (recurrence threshold) = 0.16
    Chosen from Jacob et al. 2018 and applied uniformly to all systems, not per system. Directly affects the recurrence plot and all RQA measures.
  • embedding dimension m = 4
    Set to the FNN majority value, not individually optimized. Affects the reconstructed dynamics and hence DET and ENT.
  • Segment length for RQA = ~3000 points
    Chosen without detailed justification; the paper does not specify which segment or whether results depend on segment choice.
  • Savitzky-Golay and rolling average parameters = Not specified
    Window lengths and polynomial orders are not given in the text, making the preprocessing pipeline irreproducible as stated.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Takens' delay embedding theorem guarantees that the time-delay embedding reconstructs the underlying dynamics (Section 2.2).
    Standard result used to justify the phase-space reconstruction.
  • domain assumption The recurrence quantification measures (RR, DET, LAM, ENT) are meaningful for the preprocessed light curves (Section 2.2).
    Assumes the light curves are stationary enough and that recurrences reflect astrophysical dynamics rather than noise or preprocessing.
  • domain assumption The fixed embedding parameters m=4 and epsilon=0.16 are valid for all 1237 binaries (Section 2.2).
    The paper does not validate these choices per system; if inappropriate, DET and ENT would be unreliable.
  • ad hoc to paper The functional form f(x)=1/(1+((x+k)/x0)^{-alpha}) adequately describes the ENT-DET relationship (Eq. 6).
    Chosen without physical motivation or model comparison; the DDM parameter depends entirely on this fitted curve.
  • ad hoc to paper The arc length along the fitted curve is a meaningful morphology coordinate (Section 2.3).
    No justification is given for why Euclidean projection and arc length should encode morphology.
invented entities (1)
  • Dynamically Derived Morphology (DDM) parameter
    purpose: A new scalar classification parameter for close binary stars, intended to capture nonlinear dynamics in the light curve.
    DDM is defined using a fit to the same data it is then used to classify, and no out-of-sample prediction or independent dataset is provided. The correlation with the standard morphology parameter is a post hoc comparison, not a falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamically derived morphology from the recurrence patterns of close binary stars using Kepler data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F4DY5DOP

@misc{pith2026250604111,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamically derived morphology from the recurrence patterns of close binary stars using Kepler data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F4DY5DOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04111}
}
abstract

In this work, we propose a novel method to classify close binary stars, derived from the dynamical structure inherent in their light curves. We apply the technique to light curves of binaries from the revised Kepler Eclipsing binary catalog, selecting close binaries which have the standard morphology parameter, $c$, $\gt 0.5$ corresponding to semi-detached, over-contact and ellipsoidal systems. Using the method of time delay embedding, we recreate the non-linear dynamics underlying the data and quantify the patterns of recurrences in them. Using two recurrence measures, Determinism and Entropy, we define a new Dynamically Derived Morphology (DDM) parameter and compute its values for the Kepler objects. While as expected, this metric is somewhat inversely correlated with the existing morphology parameter (Spearman $\rho= -0.32$), the method offers an alternate classification scheme for close binary stars that captures their nonlinear dynamics, an aspect often overlooked in conventional methods. Hence, the DDM parameter is expected to distinguish between stars with similar folded light curves, but are dynamically dissimilar due to nonlinear effects. Moreover, since the method can be easily automated and is computationally efficient it can be effectively used for future sensitive large data sets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04111 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Lightcurves of three typical binary stars preprocessed us￾ing the method described in Section 2.1. The time axis is given in Barycentric Kepler Julian Date (BKJD) which is the Barycentric Ju￾lian Date (BJD) with a zero point of 2454833.0 (BKJD = BJD￾2454833). Panel a: KIC 10014830 (morphology parameter, c=0.61). Panel b: KIC 5198315 (c=0.79). Panel c: KIC 9544350 (c=0.92). 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 x(t) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. To quantify these patterns, we use recurrence measures such as Recurrence Rate (RR), Determinism (DET), Laminarity (LAM) and Entropy (ENT) (Marwan et al. 2007). RR gives an estimate of the density of points in RP or the fraction of recurrent points as RR = 1 𝑁2 ∑︁𝑁 𝑖, 𝑗=1 𝑅𝑖 𝑗 (2) Here 𝑁 is the total number of points on the reconstructed phase space trajectory. DET quantifies the deterministic aspect of the system’s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. DDM parameter values determined from the DET-ENT plane for all eclipsing binary stars. The best fit curve used to determine the value of the parameter is shown in red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between morphology and DDM parameters for all close binaries. An inverse correlation of −0.32 is observed. MNRAS 000, 1–7 (2025) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    Abdul-Masih M., et al., 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 101

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Ambika G., Harikrishnan K., 2020, Dynamics and Control of Energy Systems, pp 9--27

    work page 2020

  4. [4]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  5. [5]

    Babaei B., Zarghami R., Sedighikamal H., Sotudeh-Gharebagh R., Mostoufi N., 2014, @doi [Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2013.10.016 , 395, 112

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physa.2013.10.016 2014

  6. [6]

    B., Klagyivik P., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2530 , 455, 4136

    Borkovits T., Hajdu T., Sztakovics J., Rappaport S., Levine A., Bíró I. B., Klagyivik P., 2015, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stv2530 , 455, 4136

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2530 2015

  7. [7]

    J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    Borucki W. J., et al., 2010, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1185402 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Sci...327..977B 327, 977

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

  8. [8]

    Bradley E., Kantz H., 2015, @doi [Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science] 10.1063/1.4917289 , 25, 097610

    doi:10.1063/1.4917289 2015

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Cherepashchuk A., 2022, Astronomy Reports, 66, S5

    2022

  2. [10]

    F., et al., 2015, @doi [Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science] 10.1063/1.4934554 , 25, 113101

    Donges J. F., et al., 2015, @doi [Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science] 10.1063/1.4934554 , 25, 113101

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    O., Ruelle D., et al., 1995, World Scientific Series on Nonlinear Science Series A, 16, 441

    Eckmann J.-P., Kamphorst S. O., Ruelle D., et al., 1995, World Scientific Series on Nonlinear Science Series A, 16, 441

    1995

  4. [12]

    Fabry M., Marchant P., Sana H., 2022, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 661, A123

    2022

  5. [13]

    Fabry M., Marchant P., Langer N., Sana H., 2023, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 672, A175

    2023

  6. [14]

    V., Misra R., Ambika G., 2019, @doi [Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science] 10.1063/1.5120739 , 29, 113112

    George S. V., Misra R., Ambika G., 2019, @doi [Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science] 10.1063/1.5120739 , 29, 113112

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    V., Misra R., Ambika G., 2020, @doi [Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2019.104988 , 80, 104988

    George S. V., Misra R., Ambika G., 2020, @doi [Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2019.104988 , 80, 104988

    2020

  8. [16]

    P., Misra R., Ambika G., 2011, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/11/1/004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011RAA....11...71H 11, 71

    Harikrishnan K. P., Misra R., Ambika G., 2011, @doi [Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics] 10.1088/1674-4527/11/1/004 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011RAA....11...71H 11, 71

    2011 doi

  9. [17]

    J., 1992, in , Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution

    Huber P. J., 1992, in , Breakthroughs in statistics: Methodology and distribution. Springer, pp 492--518

    1992

  10. [18]

    Jacob R., Harikrishnan K., Misra R., Ambika G., 2018, Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 54, 84

    2018

  11. [19]

    F., Caballero-Nieves S

    Knote M. F., Caballero-Nieves S. M., Gokhale V., Johnston K. B., Perlman E. S., 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 262, 10

    2022

  12. [20]

    Koll \'a th Z., 1990, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 247, NO. 3/DEC1, P. 377, 1990, 247, 377

    1990

  13. [21]

    Lightkurve Collaboration et al., 2018, Lightkurve: Kepler and TESS time series analysis in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library ( @eprint ascl 1812.013 )

    2018

  14. [22]

    Marwan N., Carmen Romano M., Thiel M., Kurths J., 2007, @doi [Physics Reports] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2006.11.001 , 438, 237

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    A., Welsh W

    Matijevič G., Prša A., Orosz J. A., Welsh W. F., Bloemen S., Barclay T., 2012, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/143/5/123 , 143, 123

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    Milone E., 1968, Astronomical Journal, Vol. 73, p. 708-711 (1968), 73, 708

    1968

  17. [25]

    P., Mukhopadhyay B., Ambika G., Kembhavi A

    Misra R., Harikrishnan K. P., Mukhopadhyay B., Ambika G., Kembhavi A. K., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/421005 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...609..313M 609, 313

    2004 doi

  18. [26]

    P., Ambika G., Kembhavi A

    Misra R., Harikrishnan K. P., Ambika G., Kembhavi A. K., 2006, @doi [Advances in Space Research] 10.1016/j.asr.2005.10.061 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AdSpR..38.2897M 38, 2897

    2006 doi

  19. [27]

    K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-022-04050-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Ap&SS.367...19M 367, 19

    Modak S., Chattopadhyay T., Chattopadhyay A. K., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-022-04050-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Ap&SS.367...19M 367, 19

    2022 doi

  20. [28]

    H., Crutchfield J

    Packard N. H., Crutchfield J. P., Farmer J. D., Shaw R. S., 1980, Physical review letters, 45, 712

    1980

  21. [29]

    G., Burger D

    Paegert M., Stassun K. G., Burger D. M., 2014, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.1088/0004-6256/148/2/31 , 148, 31

    2014 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Boyd P

    Phillipson R. A., Boyd P. T., Smale A. P., Vogeley M. S., 2020, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/staa2069 , 497, 3418

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    H., 2007, Numerical recipes 3rd edition: The art of scientific computing

    Press W. H., 2007, Numerical recipes 3rd edition: The art of scientific computing. Cambridge university press

    2007

  24. [32]

    Pr s a A., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/83 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....141...83P 141, 83

    2011 doi

  25. [33]

    M., S \'a nchez-Fern \'a ndez C., Gim \'e nez \'A ., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20052830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...446..395S 446, 395

    Sarro L. M., S \'a nchez-Fern \'a ndez C., Gim \'e nez \'A ., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20052830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...446..395S 446, 395

    2006 doi

  26. [34]

    W., 2011, IEEE Signal processing magazine, 28, 111

    Schafer R. W., 2011, IEEE Signal processing magazine, 28, 111

    2011

  27. [35]

    N., 2003, in Meyers R

    Shore S. N., 2003, in Meyers R. A., ed., , Encyclopedia of Physical Science and Technology (Third Edition), third edition edn, Academic Press, New York, pp 77--92, @doi https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-227410-5/00052-1

    2003 doi

  28. [36]

    H., 1982, The Physical Universe

    Shu F. H., 1982, The Physical Universe

    1982

  29. [37]

    W., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..160S 142, 160

    Slawson R. W., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-6256/142/5/160 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011AJ....142..160S 142, 160

    2011 doi

  30. [38]

    Sukov \'a P., Grzedzielski M., Janiuk A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526692 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...586A.143S 586, A143

    2016 doi

  31. [39]

    Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 366--381

    Takens F., 1981, in Rand D., Young L.-S., eds, Dynamical Systems and Turbulence, Warwick 1980. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 366--381

    1981

  32. [40]

    Tran K., Levine A., Rappaport S., Borkovits T., Csizmadia S., Kalomeni B., 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 774, 81

    2013

  33. [41]

    Wang K., Zhang X., Deng L., Luo C., Luo Y., Zhang J., 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 805, 22

    2015

  34. [42]

    @esa (Ref

    \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should not add it explicitly Type <Return> for now, but then later remove the command natbib from the document \@ifclassloaded aguplus natbib The aguplus class already includes natbib codin...

  35. [43]

    @stdbsttrue NAT@ctr \@lbibitem[ NAT@ctr ] \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 [ @natanchorstart #2\@extra@b@citeb \@biblabel @num @natanchorend] @ifc...

  36. [44]

    =ʄGȝoWhDsZSg>S

    @open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifundefined NAT@sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifundefined bib@heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel NAT@ctr \@bib...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.