Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 223 references

Deep learning inference with the Event Horizon Telescope II. The Zingularity framework for Bayesian artificial neural networks

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Bayesian neural network trained on synthetic full-Stokes EHT visibilities can infer the spin, magnetic state, and temperature ratio of Sgr A* and M87*, with uncertainties that survive validation tests.

desk verdict Useful, reproducible BANN framework for EHT parameter inference, but the paper's 'trustworthy uncertainties' claim is contradicted by its own out-of-distribution test. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.13875 v1 pith:7JYHWE7K submitted 2025-06-16 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph

M. Janssen , C.-k. Chan , J. Davelaar , M. Wielgus This is my paper
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph
keywords BayesianneuralnetworksEventHorizonTelescopeverylongbaselineinterferometryGRMHDsimulationsblackholespinSgrA*M87*variationalinference
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper aims to establish that a Bayesian deep neural network, trained on synthetic Event Horizon Telescope observations built from general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations, can recover physical parameters of Sgr A* and M87* directly from the interferometric visibilities. The target parameters are black hole spin, the magnetic state of the accretion flow, the ion-to-electron temperature ratio, and the viewing geometry. If this holds, parameter estimation that currently requires expensive scoring of many simulation snapshots becomes near-instant and comes with posterior uncertainties. The authors present the open-source Zingularity framework, validate it on held-out synthetic data, cross-code test datasets, and bootstrapped observational noise, and conclude that reliable inference on real EHT data is achievable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Bayesian artificial neural network (BANN), whose weights are trainable probability distributions rather than point values. A convolutional ResNet stack compresses the full time-baseline visibility array into salient features, and dense variational layers then output a stochastic posterior over the physical parameters, with a softmax head for the magnetically arrested disk (MAD) versus standard and normal evolution (SANE) classification and linear heads for spin, temperature ratio, and viewing angle. Variational inference approximates the intractable weight posterior through an evidence-lower-bound objective, so repeated forward passes sample the predictive distribution. The other half of the machinery is the training set: hundreds of thousands of synthetic observations produced by ray-traced GRMHD models with thermal noise, gain errors, polarization leakage, atmospheric and scattering effects, with the same corruption effects bootstrapped onto the observational data at inference time.

What would settle it

One decisive test is to add the misidentified Sgr A* model (SANE, a*=0.94, Rhigh=1, ilos=70) and its parameter-space neighbors to the training library and retrain; if the network still returns a narrow posterior near Rhigh=34 and ilos=106, the claim of trustworthy uncertainties for out-of-grid data fails. A complementary test is to apply the trained networks to the real 2017 EHT observations and check whether the posterior modes contradict independently established multiwavelength constraints on Sgr A* and M87*.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a Bayesian artificial neural network built from convolutional ResNet blocks feeding variational layers learns a mapping from 10-second-sampled, full-polarization EHT visibilities to the GRMHD model parameters, with the network's predictive spread serving as a trustworthy posterior. The authors show that polarization information is essential, that realistic forward modeling of the signal path is necessary to avoid overconfident but wrong inference, and that the Bayesian posterior can expose failure modes: an out-of-grid M87* spin produces a multimodal posterior, while an out-of-grid Sgr A* model is confidently misidentified as its nearest training-data neighbor. Their conclusion is that, with enough training samples and honest forward modeling, the trained networks generalize well enough to give reliable parameter constraints on observational data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sparse grid of GRMHD training models, all assuming ideal magnetohydrodynamics and the same electron-temperature prescription, spans the true parameter space of Sgr A* and M87* closely enough that the network's learned mapping and its posterior remain valid for actual EHT data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Inference becomes nearly instantaneous: once trained, producing 100 posterior samples from 100 bootstrapped datasets takes about 20 seconds, compared with the heavy computational cost of scoring many GRMHD snapshots.
  • Polarization is required: networks trained on Stokes I alone barely train, so the full polarization content of the visibilities is what makes spin and magnetic-state inference possible.
  • Simplified forward modeling is dangerous: when only thermal noise is added to the synthetic data, validation errors drop and the network would overfit the real corruption effects present in observational data.
  • The posterior is informative about out-of-distribution data: an out-of-grid M87* spin gives a multimodal posterior, while an out-of-grid Sgr A* model is confidently assigned to a wrong region of parameter space.
  • The training-grid density becomes a measurable systematic: the Sgr A* misidentification is attributed directly to the limited grid of model parameters in the GRMHD library.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Applied to real data, the posterior width should not be read as the full systematic uncertainty; a coverage audit of the training grid, such as distance to the nearest training models, should accompany any astrophysical conclusion.
  • A natural extension is to add explicit out-of-distribution detection to the pipeline, so that data resembling the misidentified Sgr A* model are flagged before a confident posterior is quoted.
  • With the denser baseline coverage of next-generation EHT arrays, the same architecture should tighten the spin and temperature posteriors, but only if the simulation library is expanded at the same time; otherwise the network will keep interpolating across gaps.
  • The closeness of the misidentified model to its training-data neighbor suggests the network is interpolating the GRMHD library, which implies that a finer parameter grid could turn today's confident misidentifications into broadened posteriors.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents Zingularity, an open-source TensorFlow-based framework for Bayesian neural network inference on very long baseline interferometry data, applied here to synthetic Event Horizon Telescope observations of Sgr A* and M87*. The training library is built from a large set of kharma GRMHD-GRRT model images processed through the Symba signal-path simulator, and the network maps full-Stokes visibilities to posteriors over MAD/SANE classification, spin, Rhigh, inclination, and position angle. The paper reports training diagnostics, hyperparameter surveys, and validation tests on both held-out kharma data and independent bhac-raptor test data, with the stated conclusion that the Bayesian networks yield trustworthy uncertainties and generalize well enough for reliable inference on observational data. The companion paper is said to apply the trained networks to real EHT observations.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this would be a substantial practical contribution: a publicly available, containerized, reproducible deep-learning pipeline that uses full-Stokes visibility information and a very large synthetic training set to infer GRMHD parameters orders of magnitude faster than conventional likelihood-based methods. The paper's strengths include the unusually large and detailed training library, the use of full polarization products, the careful treatment of signal-path corruption effects, the explicit hyperparameter stability surveys, and the availability of a Docker container with configuration files for reproduction. The inclusion of an out-of-distribution bhac-raptor test is commendable and provides the only genuinely independent evidence in the paper. However, the interpretation of that test is where the paper's central claim breaks down: the sole independent out-of-distribution test produces confidently wrong posteriors for parameters that lie inside the training grid, and the paper's own text incorrectly describes these as small errors.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.3, Fig. 5] The only out-of-distribution validation test with in-grid parameters is the Sgr A* SANE bhac test with ground truth a*=0.94, Rhigh=1, ilos=70. The inferred posterior is a*=0.94+0.03/-0.05, Rhigh=34.49+8.49/-2.26, and ilos=105.95+3.43/-4.14. The true Rhigh and ilos lie far outside the 68% credible intervals. The text states that "We ascribe the small Rhigh and ilos errors to the aforementioned differences in ray-tracing," but these are not small errors in any meaningful sense, and the posterior widths do not expand to reflect the simulator mismatch. Since this is the only test that does not share the training forward model, it directly contradicts the abstract and Section 7 claims that the Bayesian nature of the networks gives trustworthy uncertainties and that the networks generalize well enough for reliable results on observational data. The paper needs either a calibration/tempering procedure for forward-model uncertainty or a substantially weakened statement of what the posteriors mean.
  2. [§4, §6.1] The low validation errors shown in Figure 4 are computed on held-out samples drawn from the same kharma GRMHD-GRRT library used for training. This is an interpolation check within one forward-modeling family, not evidence of external reliability. The paper repeatedly uses these low validation errors as evidence of generalization, but the only independent test, the bhac-raptor data in Section 6.3, shows that the network latches onto code-specific features: in-grid parameters are misestimated with high confidence. The manuscript should explicitly state that Figure 4 validates interpolation within the training library, and it should not be cited as evidence that the network generalizes across forward-modeling assumptions.
  3. [§6.3] The paper explains the Sgr A* SANE model misidentification as being due to "the limited grid of model parameters in the training data." This explanation is insufficient and partly contradicted by the paper's own test: the Sgr A* SANE model has a*=0.94, Rhigh=1, ilos=70, all inside the training grid, yet the posterior is concentrated at Rhigh=34.5 and ilos=105.95. If the failure were purely a grid-density problem, an in-grid test should not fail this badly. The visibility comparison in Figure 6 shows that the network, by design, finds the kharma model with the most similar visibilities, which is a different code's model; this demonstrates sensitivity to code-specific nuisance features rather than a mere sparsity effect. The manuscript should either provide a kharma-based counter-test at the true parameter values or acknowledge that the posterior cannot be expected to signal this form of failure.
  4. [§5.2, §7] The bootstrapping procedure in Section 5.2 resamples only the known corruption effects (D-terms, gains, gain curves, thermal noise). It does not marginalize over the GRMHD-GRRT forward-modeling uncertainty, which the bhac-raptor test shows is a dominant source of systematic error. Section 8 lists alternative electron prescriptions, nonideal MHD, and other extensions as future work, but the claims in the abstract and Section 7 that "uncertainties in the data are accurately taken into account" and that the posteriors are "trustworthy" require the model-form uncertainty to be either incorporated or explicitly excluded from the scope. The scope restriction is acceptable, but it must be stated prominently in the abstract and conclusions rather than only in the outlook.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "We carried out out supervised learning" contains a duplicated word and should be corrected.
  2. [§7] The sentence "Additionally, showed that a sufficiently large training dataset is needed..." is missing a subject and should read "Additionally, we showed that...".
  3. [§5.1.1] The word "unlabled" should be "unlabeled."
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption describes the panels as corner plots, but the displayed figures appear to be marginal posterior distributions rather than full corner plots; the caption should match the actual figure content.
  5. [§5.1.5] The metric discussion states that parameter-dependent performance will be evident in the posteriors because regions of poor network performance will produce wide posteriors. This is not guaranteed for misspecified forward models, as the bhac test in Section 6.3 demonstrates; a caveat should be added here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: held-out and bhac/raptor validation provide independent checks; self-citations are not load-bearing reductions.

full rationale

The inference chain is supervised learning from an external GRMHD-GRRT synthetic library through a Bayesian neural network; no inferred parameter is constructed from the target it claims to predict. Validation on held-out kharma-based data is a standard same-distribution check, and Section 6.3 explicitly supplies an out-of-distribution test: 'all synthetic observations used so far were based on the same type of kharma GRMHD-GRRT models ... test datasets that were obtained from a different kind of simulation model: GRMHD runs from the bhac code ray-traced by raptor.' The reported failures on that test (e.g., Sgr A* SANE truth Rhigh=1, ilos=70 inferred as Rhigh=34.5, ilos=105.95) are genuine extrapolation errors and correctness/calibration concerns, not circular reductions, since the network never saw bhac labels. Self-citations to Janssen et al. (2025a) supply the training library and signal-path modeling; these are companion-paper methods citations rather than an unverified uniqueness theorem, and the containerized Zingularity release plus open data pipeline give external reproducibility. The paper also flags its own model dependence and coarse parameter grid, so the central claim is contingent rather than tautological. The hyperparameter survey uses observational eU for stability selection in Section 6.2, which is a model-selection-on-target concern, but the selection criterion is cross-instance agreement rather than matching the predicted values, so it does not make the validation a fitted re-statement. Score 2 reflects only the presence of routine companion-paper self-citations; there is no self-definitional, fitted-input, or imported-uniqueness circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the trained network mapping, which is a fit to millions of synthetic samples, and on the forward-model assumptions that make those samples representative of real EHT observations. The fitted degrees of freedom are the network weights plus hand-chosen architecture and training hyperparameters; the bootstrap corruption magnitudes are inherited from earlier EHT analyses. The most fragile element, acknowledged by the authors, is the sparsity and code-dependence of the GRMHD-GRRT training library: the bhac test shows that a wrong and overconfident posterior can result when a real source lands away from the training grid.

free parameters (6)
  • Neural network weights and biases = M87*: 1,376,806; Sgr A*: 135,068,877 parameters (Table 2)
    Fitted by RMSProp to minimize the negative log-likelihood on the synthetic training set; the entire learned parameter-to-data mapping is a fit to training data.
  • Number of training epochs N_ep = 70 (M87*), 50/60 (Sgr A*)
    Chosen empirically where the loss curve saturates, determined by eye and a small survey around it (Section 5.1.1).
  • Dropout rate eta_drop = 0.01 (M87*), 0 (Sgr A*)
    Selected from survey of {0, 0.01, 0.02} based on validation performance (Section 6.2).
  • Regularization strengths L1 and L2 = 0.01 each
    Selected from survey of {0, 0.01, 0.02}; Table 2 and Section 6.2.
  • Architecture hyperparameters (nCNNb, nCNNl, Ndense, ndense) = M87*: 16, 128, 15, 128; Sgr A*: 8, 2048, 12, 1024
    Chosen through parameter surveys as the configuration with lowest validation errors (Section 6.2, Table 2).
  • Bootstrapping corruption magnitudes = D1=3%, Gplanet=10%, Gscatter=5-35%, gcB=3.6-10.4%, gcE0=1-2%, sigma_th as in Table 2
    Inputs taken from earlier EHT calibration studies (Janssen et al. 2019a) and used as fixed values in the bootstrapping; posterior widths depend on these choices.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption GRMHD-GRRT simulations with ideal MHD and a Rhigh electron-temperature parameterization describe the horizon-scale emission of Sgr A* and M87*.
    Stated in Sections 2 and 4; all training data are generated from these simulations, and Section 8 lists the electron prescription as a known limitation.
  • domain assumption The Symba signal-path model accurately represents the 2017 EHT data corruption for training and bootstrapping.
    Section 4: "eS was created with Symba ... to model the complete signal path"; if this forward model is wrong, biases propagate to real-data inference.
  • domain assumption Variational inference with multivariate Normal surrogate posteriors is an adequate approximation of the true Bayesian posterior.
    Section 5.1.2 and Appendix A.1; no comparison to full posterior sampling or calibration test is provided, yet the credible intervals are treated as trustworthy.
  • ad hoc to paper The sparse parameter grid of the training library is dense enough that interpolation between GRMHD model realizations is valid.
    The paper's own Section 6.3 misidentification is attributed to "the limited grid of model parameters in the training data"; this assumption is load-bearing.
  • standard math Standard neural-network backpropagation and variational-inference mathematics (Bayes rule, ELBO, KL divergence).
    Appendix A provides a summary; these are established results and not specific to this work.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Deep learning inference with the Event Horizon Telescope II. The Zingularity framework for Bayesian artificial neural networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7JYHWE7K

@misc{pith2026250613875,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Deep learning inference with the Event Horizon Telescope II. The Zingularity framework for Bayesian artificial neural networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7JYHWE7K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.13875}
}
read the original abstract

(abridged) In this second paper in our publication series, we present the open-source Zingularity framework for parameter inference with deep Bayesian artificial neural networks. We carried out out supervised learning with synthetic millimeter very long baseline interferometry observations of the EHT. Our ground-truth models are based on GRMHD simulations of Sgr A* and M87* on horizon scales. We investigated how well Zingularity neural networks are able to infer key model parameters from EHT observations, such as the black hole spin and the magnetic state of the accretion disk, when uncertainties in the data are accurately taken into account. Zingularity makes use of the TensorFlow Probability library and is able to handle large amounts of data with a combination of the efficient TFRecord data format plus the Horovod framework. Our approach is the first analysis of EHT data with Bayesian neural networks, where an unprecedented training data size, under consideration of a closely modeled EHT signal path, and the full information content of the observational data are used. Zingularity infers parameters based on salient features in the data and is containerized. Through parameter surveys and dedicated validation tests, we identified neural network architectures, that are robust against internal stochastic processes and unaffected by noise in the observational and model data. We give examples of how different data properties affect the network training. We show how the Bayesian nature of our networks gives trustworthy uncertainties and uncovers failure modes for uncharacterizable data. It is easy to achieve low validation errors during training on synthetic data with neural networks, particularly when the forward modeling is too simplified. Through careful studies, we demonstrate that our trained networks can generalize well so that reliable results can be obtained from observational data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.13875 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Four training dataset examples. The top row shows the total intensity ray-traced ground-truth model images on logarithmic scales with varying dynamic ranges. Normalized full-pol visibility amplitudes and phases of corresponding synthetic data realizations are displayed with thermal noise error bars as a function of baseline length in units of the observing wavelength λ ≈ 1.3 mm (see Janssen et al. (2025a) for the (u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart of the Zingularity data streams. The left column shows the pathway from the input theory models Me to the training data Te. The right column shows the processing chain for the observational EHT data Ue. The central column presents the common metadata used. times likely cause decoherence in mm VLBI observations. For the current EHT data of Sgr A∗ in particular, both effects need to be taken into account (Ev… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Layout and data flow of our chosen M87∗ and Sgr A∗ BANN architectures. The ResNet and dense variational blocks are repeated Nconv and Ndense times, respectively. Single variational neurons are used in each output layer. servational data are processed, and the parallels between the observation and theory processing chains. The integration of the vlbimonitor (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al. 2019a), Open S… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance metrics for the Sgr A∗ and M87∗ network training are displayed for various dedicated Zingularity validation tests as described in Section 6. The validation error is computed from normalized labels of validation data not seen by the network during training. …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Inference results on M87∗ (top row) and Sgr A∗ (bottom row) test datasets created from differing simulations (described in Section 6.3) with our fiducial BANN. The corner plots give the inferred parameters. Ground truth values are labeled in the top right corners. For …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Normalized visibility amplitudes and phases in degrees (deg) color-coded by I, Q, U Stokes parameters with standard deviation error bands computed from 100 synthetic data realizations of 2017 Sgr A∗ EHT observations with corresponding (u, v) coverage are displayed. The…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

223 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.04467

    Abadi , M., Agarwal , A., Barham , P., et al. 2016 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1603.04467

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    2016 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.08695

    Abadi , M., Barham , P., Chen , J., et al. 2016 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.08695

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Advani , M. S. & Saxe , A. M. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.03667

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    S., Dabbech , A., & Wiaux , Y

    Aghabiglou , A., Chu , C. S., Dabbech , A., & Wiaux , Y. 2024, , 273, 3

    2024

  5. [5]

    2020, , 493, 1404

    Anantua , R., Ressler , S., & Quataert , E. 2020, , 493, 1404

    2020

  6. [6]

    & Brown , R

    Balick , B. & Brown , R. L. 1974, , 194, 265

    1974

  7. [7]

    Bardeen , J. M. 1973, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), 215--239

    1973

  8. [8]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.07248

    Baron , D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.07248

    arXiv 2019

Show all 223 references
  1. [9]

    L., Long , P

    Bartlett , P. L., Long , P. M., Lugosi , G., & Tsigler , A. 2020, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 117, 30063

    2020

  2. [10]

    2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 15849

    Belkin , M., Hsu , D., Ma , S., & Mandal , S. 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 116, 15849

    2019

  3. [11]

    A., Sparks , W

    Biretta , J. A., Sparks , W. B., & Macchetto , F. 1999, , 520, 621

    1999

  4. [12]

    2019, arXiv e-prints (Astro2020 APC White Paper), arXiv:1909.01411

    Blackburn , L., Doeleman , S., Dexter , J., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints (Astro2020 APC White Paper), arXiv:1909.01411

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W., Johnson , M

    Blackburn , L., Pesce , D. W., Johnson , M. D., et al. 2020, , 894, 31

    2020

  6. [14]

    2015, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 37, 1613

    Blundell , C., Cornebise , J., Kavukcuoglu , K., & Wierstra , D. 2015, Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, 37, 1613

    2015

  7. [15]

    E., Gold , R., Georgiev , B., et al

    Broderick , A. E., Gold , R., Georgiev , B., et al. 2022, , 930, L21

    2022

  8. [16]

    E., Gold , R., Karami , M., et al

    Broderick , A. E., Gold , R., Karami , M., et al. 2020, , 897, 139

    2020

  9. [17]

    Broderick , A. E. & Pesce , D. W. 2020, , 904, 126

    2020

  10. [18]

    2018, , 613, A2

    Bronzwaer , T., Davelaar , J., Younsi , Z., et al. 2018, , 613, A2

    2018

  11. [19]

    & Falcke , H

    Bronzwaer , T. & Falcke , H. 2021, , 920, 155

    2021

  12. [20]

    2020, , 641, A126

    Bronzwaer , T., Younsi , Z., Davelaar , J., & Falcke , H. 2020, , 641, A126

    2020

  13. [21]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.02989

    Broughton , M., Verdon , G., McCourt , T., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.02989

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T., Chubb , T

    Byram , E. T., Chubb , T. A., & Friedman , H. 1966, Science, 152, 66

    1966

  15. [23]

    D., & Lupsasca , A

    Chael , A., Johnson , M. D., & Lupsasca , A. 2021, , 918, 6

    2021

  16. [24]

    N., & Quataert , E

    Chael , A., Lupsasca , A., Wong , G. N., & Quataert , E. 2023, , 958, 65

    2023

  17. [25]

    Chael , A., Narayan , R., & Johnson , M. D. 2019, , 486, 2873

    2019

  18. [26]

    2018, , 478, 5209

    Chael , A., Rowan , M., Narayan , R., Johnson , M., & Sironi , L. 2018, , 478, 5209

    2018

  19. [27]

    2021, , 508, 1241

    Chashkina , A., Bromberg , O., & Levinson , A. 2021, , 508, 1241

    2021

  20. [28]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432

    Chatterjee , K., Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Markoff , S. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.00432

    2023

  21. [29]

    2021, , 507, 5281

    Chatterjee , K., Markoff , S., Neilsen , J., et al. 2021, , 507, 5281

    2021

  22. [30]

    Chatterji , N. S. & Long , P. M. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2004.12019

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.0233

    Choromanska , A., Henaff , M., Mathieu , M., Ben Arous , G., & LeCun , Y. 2014, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1412.0233

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S., Baub \"o ck , M., Dhruv , V., et al

    Conroy , N. S., Baub \"o ck , M., Dhruv , V., et al. 2023, , 951, 46

    2023

  25. [33]

    E., Cornwell , T

    Conway , J. E., Cornwell , T. J., & Wilkinson , P. N. 1990, , 246, 490

    1990

  26. [34]

    2022, , 129, 205101

    Crinquand , B., Cerutti , B., Dubus , G., Parfrey , K., & Philippov , A. 2022, , 129, 205101

    2022

  27. [35]

    2020, , 124, 145101

    Crinquand , B., Cerutti , B., Philippov , A., Parfrey , K., & Dubus , G. 2020, , 124, 145101

    2020

  28. [36]

    M., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Cruz-Osorio , A., Fromm , C. M., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 103

    2022

  29. [37]

    Curtis , H. D. 1918, Publications of Lick Observatory, 13, 9

    1918

  30. [38]

    2025, , 978, L10

    Davelaar , J. 2025, , 978, L10

    2025

  31. [39]

    2018, , 612, A34

    Davelaar , J., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., Bronzwaer , T., & Falcke , H. 2018, , 612, A34

    2018

  32. [40]

    2019, , 632, A2

    Davelaar , J., Olivares , H., Porth , O., et al. 2019, , 632, A2

    2019

  33. [41]

    A., Bromberg , O., & Singh , C

    Davelaar , J., Philippov , A. A., Bromberg , O., & Singh , C. B. 2020, , 896, L31

    2020

  34. [42]

    & Hawley , J

    De Villiers , J.-P. & Hawley , J. F. 2003, , 592, 1060

    2003

  35. [43]

    2015, Future Generation Computer Systems, 46, 17, funding Acknowledgements: NSF ACI SDCI 0722019, NSF ACI SI2-SSI 1148515 and NSF OCI-1053575

    Deelman, E., Vahi, K., Juve, G., et al. 2015, Future Generation Computer Systems, 46, 17, funding Acknowledgements: NSF ACI SDCI 0722019, NSF ACI SI2-SSI 1148515 and NSF OCI-1053575

    2015

  36. [44]

    E., Hall , P

    Dewdney , P. E., Hall , P. J., Schilizzi , R. T., & Lazio , T. J. L. W. 2009, IEEE Proceedings, 97, 1482

    2009

  37. [45]

    C., & Agol , E

    Dexter , J., McKinney , J. C., & Agol , E. 2012, , 421, 1517

    2012

  38. [46]

    C., Markoff , S., & Dexter , J

    Dibi , S., Drappeau , S., Fragile , P. C., Markoff , S., & Dexter , J. 2012, , 426, 1928

    2012

  39. [47]

    V., Langmore , I., Tran , D., et al

    Dillon , J. V., Langmore , I., Tran , D., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1711.10604

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G., Mahabal , A

    Djorgovski , S. G., Mahabal , A. A., Graham , M. J., Polsterer , K., & Krone-Martins , A. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2212.01493

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2019, Science, 365, 664

    Do , T., Hees , A., Ghez , A., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664

    2019

  42. [50]

    S., Barrett , J., Blackburn , L., et al

    Doeleman , S. S., Barrett , J., Blackburn , L., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 107

    2023

  43. [51]

    Duarte , R., Nemmen , R., & Navarro , J. P. 2022, , 512, 5848

    2022

  44. [52]

    C., Anczarski , J., et al

    EHT MWL Science Working Group , Algaba , J. C., Anczarski , J., et al. 2021, , 911, L11

    2021

  45. [53]

    S., Wielgus , M., et al

    Emami , R., Doeleman , S. S., Wielgus , M., et al. 2023 a , , 955, 6

    2023

  46. [54]

    N., et al

    Emami , R., Ricarte , A., Wong , G. N., et al. 2023 b , , 950, 38

    2023

  47. [55]

    2024, , 964, L26

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2024, , 964, L26

    2024

  48. [56]

    2023, , 957, L20

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2023, , 957, L20

    2023

  49. [57]

    2022 a , , 930, L13

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 a , , 930, L13

    2022

  50. [58]

    2022 b , , 930, L14

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 b , , 930, L14

    2022

  51. [59]

    2022 c , , 930, L15

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 c , , 930, L15

    2022

  52. [60]

    2022 d , , 930, L17

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 d , , 930, L17

    2022

  53. [61]

    2019 a , , 875, L2

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 a , , 875, L2

    2019

  54. [62]

    2019 b , , 875, L3

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 b , , 875, L3

    2019

  55. [63]

    2019 c , , 875, L4

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 c , , 875, L4

    2019

  56. [64]

    2019 d , , 875, L5

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 d , , 875, L5

    2019

  57. [65]

    2019 e , , 875, L6

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2019 e , , 875, L6

    2019

  58. [66]

    2021 a , ApJL, 910, 48

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2021 a , ApJL, 910, 48

    2021

  59. [67]

    2021 b , , 875, 5

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2021 b , , 875, 5

    2021

  60. [68]

    2022 e , , 930, L16

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Alberdi , A., et al. 2022 e , , 930, L16

    2022

  61. [69]

    C., et al

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration , Akiyama , K., Algaba , J. C., et al. 2021 c , , 910, L13

    2021

  62. [70]

    2000, , 528, L13

    Falcke , H., Melia , F., & Agol , E. 2000, , 528, L13

    2000

  63. [71]

    T., Bouman , K

    Feng , B. T., Bouman , K. L., & Freeman , W. T. 2024, , 975, 201

    2024

  64. [72]

    Fluke , C. J. & Jacobs , C. 2020, WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10, e1349

    2020

  65. [73]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24

    2016

  66. [74]

    C., Blaes , O

    Fragile , P. C., Blaes , O. M., Anninos , P., & Salmonson , J. D. 2007, , 668, 417

    2007

  67. [75]

    M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Cruz-Osorio , A., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2022, , 660, A107

    2022

  68. [76]

    M., Perucho , M., Mimica , P., & Ros , E

    Fromm , C. M., Perucho , M., Mimica , P., & Ros , E. 2016, , 588, A101

    2016

  69. [77]

    M., Younsi , Z., Baczko , A., et al

    Fromm , C. M., Younsi , Z., Baczko , A., et al. 2019, , 629, A4

    2019

  70. [78]

    2011, , 729, 119

    Gebhardt , K., Adams , J., Richstone , D., et al. 2011, , 729, 119

    2011

  71. [79]

    & Engel , T

    Genkin , M. & Engel , T. A. 2020, Nature Machine Intelligence, 2, 674–683

    2020

  72. [80]

    & Vazza , F

    Gheller , C. & Vazza , F. 2022, , 509, 990

    2022

  73. [81]

    & Bengio, Y

    Glorot, X. & Bengio, Y. 2010, Proceedings of the Thirteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 9, 249

    2010

  74. [82]

    2021, , 910, L14

    Goddi , C., Mart \' -Vidal , I., Messias , H., & et al. 2021, , 910, L14

    2021

  75. [83]

    A., Vaughn , M., McKay , S., et al

    Goff , S. A., Vaughn , M., McKay , S., et al. 2011, Frontiers in Plant Science, 2, 34

    2011

  76. [84]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1706.02677

    Goyal , P., Doll \'a r , P., Girshick , R., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1706.02677

    2017 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Gralla , S. E. 2021, , 103, 024023

    2021

  78. [86]

    2011, Practical Variational Inference for Neural Networks, Vol

    Graves, A. 2011, Practical Variational Inference for Neural Networks, Vol. 24 (Curran Associates, Inc.)

    2011

  79. [87]

    2022, , 657, L12

    Gravity Collaboration , Abuter , R., Aimar , N., et al. 2022, , 657, L12

    2022

  80. [88]

    2018, , 615, L15

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter , R., Amorim , A., et al. 2018, , 615, L15

    2018

  81. [89]

    2019, , 625, L10

    Gravity Collaboration , Abuter , R., Amorim , A., et al. 2019, , 625, L10

    2019

  82. [90]

    2020, , 636, L5

    GRAVITY Collaboration , Abuter , R., Amorim , A., et al. 2020, , 636, L5

    2020

  83. [91]

    2011, , 477, 185

    Hada , K., Doi , A., Kino , M., et al. 2011, , 477, 185

    2011

  84. [92]

    Hahnloser , R. H. R., Sarpeshkar , R., Mahowald , M. A., Douglas , R. J., & Seung , H. S. 2000, , 405, 947

    2000

  85. [93]

    P., Bregman , J

    Hamaker , J. P., Bregman , J. D., & Sault , R. J. 1996, , 117, 137

    1996

  86. [94]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.03385

    He , K., Zhang , X., Ren , S., & Sun , J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1512.03385

    2015 arXiv

  87. [95]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.01187

    He , T., Zhang , Z., Zhang , H., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1812.01187

    2018 arXiv

  88. [96]

    E., Srivastava , N., Krizhevsky , A., Sutskever , I., & Salakhutdinov , R

    Hinton , G. E., Srivastava , N., Krizhevsky , A., Sutskever , I., & Salakhutdinov , R. R. 2012, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1207.0580

    2012 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Hinton, G. E. & van Camp, D. 1993, Keeping the Neural Networks Simple by Minimizing the Description Length of the Weights, COLT '93 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 5–13

    1993

  90. [98]

    & Lanusse , F

    Huertas-Company , M. & Lanusse , F. 2023, , 40, e001

    2023

  91. [99]

    2019 a , EHT Memo Series, 2019-CE-01 (https://eventhorizontelescope.org/for-astronomers/memos)

    Janssen , M., Blackburn , L., Issaoun , S., et al. 2019 a , EHT Memo Series, 2019-CE-01 (https://eventhorizontelescope.org/for-astronomers/memos)

    2019

  92. [100]

    2025 a , , 698, A60

    Janssen , M., Chan , C.-k., Davelaar , J., et al. 2025 a , , 698, A60

    2025

  93. [101]

    2025 b , , 698, A62

    Janssen , M., Chan , C.-k., Davelaar , J., et al. 2025 b , , 698, A62

    2025

  94. [102]

    M., et al

    Janssen , M., Goddi , C., van Bemmel , I. M., et al. 2019 b , , 626, A75

    2019

  95. [103]

    F., & Wagner , J

    Janssen , M., Radcliffe , J. F., & Wagner , J. 2022, Universe, 8, 527

    2022

  96. [104]

    Jennison , R. C. 1958, , 118, 276

    1958

  97. [105]

    D., Akiyama , K., Blackburn , L., et al

    Johnson , M. D., Akiyama , K., Blackburn , L., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 61

    2023

  98. [106]

    D., Lupsasca , A., Strominger , A., et al

    Johnson , M. D., Lupsasca , A., Strominger , A., et al. 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaaz1310

    2020

  99. [107]

    2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.07110

    Kawaguchi , K. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1605.07110

    2016 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Kerr , R. P. 1963, , 11, 237

    1963

  101. [109]

    P., Chan , C.-K., et al

    Kim , J., Marrone , D. P., Chan , C.-K., et al. 2016, , 832, 156

    2016

  102. [110]

    2021, , 103, 104047

    Kocherlakota , P., Rezzolla , L., Falcke , H., et al. 2021, , 103, 104047

    2021

  103. [111]

    2020, Big Data in Astronomy: Scientific Data Processing for Advanced Radio Telescopes (Elsevier)

    Kong , L., Huang , T., Zhu , Y., & Yu , S. 2020, Big Data in Astronomy: Scientific Data Processing for Advanced Radio Telescopes (Elsevier)

    2020

  104. [112]

    & Leibler, R

    Kullback, S. & Leibler, R. A. 1951, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 79

    1951

  105. [113]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.01993

    Kurth , T., Treichler , S., Romero , J., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1810.01993

    2018 arXiv

  106. [114]

    M., Sochat , V., & Bauer , M

    Kurtzer , G. M., Sochat , V., & Bauer , M. W. 2017, PLoS ONE, 12, e0177459

    2017

  107. [115]

    I., Diakogiannis , F., & Hoefs , L

    Lai , S., Thyagarajan , N., Wong , O. I., Diakogiannis , F., & Hoefs , L. 2025, , 536, 446

    2025

  108. [116]

    2015, , 521, 436

    LeCun , Y., Bengio , Y., & Hinton , G. 2015, , 521, 436

    2015

  109. [117]

    S., et al

    LeCun, Y., Boser, B., Denker, J. S., et al. 1989, Neural Computation, 1, 541

    1989

  110. [118]

    1998, Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 2278

    LeCun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. 1998, Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 2278

    1998

  111. [119]

    R., & Hinton , G

    Lei Ba , J., Kiros , J. R., & Hinton , G. E. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1607.06450

    2016 arXiv

  112. [120]

    A., Bouman , K

    Levis , A., Chael , A. A., Bouman , K. L., Wielgus , M., & Srinivasan , P. P. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 765

    2024

  113. [121]

    2019, , 487, 550

    Liska , M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Ingram , A., & van der Klis , M. 2019, , 487, 550

    2019

  114. [122]

    & Gralla , S

    Lockhart , W. & Gralla , S. E. 2022, , 509, 3643

    2022

  115. [123]

    & Hutter , F

    Loshchilov , I. & Hutter , F. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1608.03983

    2016 arXiv

  116. [124]

    MacDonald , N. R. & Nishikawa , K. I. 2021, , 653, A10

    2021

  117. [125]

    MacKay, D. J. C. 1992, Neural Computation, 4, 448

    1992

  118. [126]

    L., Miller , B

    Marshall , H. L., Miller , B. P., Davis , D. S., et al. 2002, , 564, 683

    2002

  119. [127]

    McKinney , J. C. 2006, , 368, 1561

    2006

  120. [128]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2012, , 423, 3083

    2012

  121. [129]

    C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R

    McKinney , J. C., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Blandford , R. D. 2013, Science, 339, 49

    2013

  122. [130]

    2019, in , Vol

    McKinnon , M., Beasley , A., Murphy , E., et al. 2019, in , Vol. 51, 81

    2019

  123. [131]

    R., & \"O zel , F

    Medeiros , L., Psaltis , D., Lauer , T. R., & \"O zel , F. 2023 a , , 943, 144

    2023

  124. [132]

    R., & \"O zel , F

    Medeiros , L., Psaltis , D., Lauer , T. R., & \"O zel , F. 2023 b , , 947, L7

    2023

  125. [133]

    2016, PLOS Biology, 14, e1002342

    Merchant , N., Lyons , E., Goff , S., et al. 2016, PLOS Biology, 14, e1002342

    2016

  126. [134]

    P., Walker , R

    Mertens , F., Lobanov , A. P., Walker , R. C., & Hardee , P. E. 2016, , 595, A54

    2016

  127. [135]

    M., Younsi , Z., et al

    Mizuno , Y., Fromm , C. M., Younsi , Z., et al. 2021, , 506, 741

    2021

  128. [136]

    2024, , 527, 10965

    Mohan , A., Protopapas , P., Kunnumkai , K., et al. 2024, , 527, 10965

    2024

  129. [137]

    C., Zhuravlev , V

    Morales Teixeira , D., Fragile , P. C., Zhuravlev , V. V., & Ivanov , P. B. 2014, , 796, 103

    2014

  130. [138]

    2023, Reports on Progress in Physics, 86, 076901

    Moriwaki , K., Nishimichi , T., & Yoshida , N. 2023, Reports on Progress in Physics, 86, 076901

    2023

  131. [139]

    R., Hezaveh , Y

    Morningstar , W. R., Hezaveh , Y. D., Perreault Levasseur , L., et al. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1808.00011

    2018 arXiv

  132. [140]

    R., Perreault Levasseur , L., Hezaveh , Y

    Morningstar , W. R., Perreault Levasseur , L., Hezaveh , Y. D., et al. 2019, , 883, 14

    2019

  133. [141]

    2025, , 981, 145

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M. 2025, , 981, 145

    2025

  134. [142]

    F., Dolence , J

    Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., Gammie , C. F., Dolence , J. C., & Shiokawa , H. 2011, , 735, 9

    2011

  135. [143]

    & Lobanov , A

    M \"u ller , H. & Lobanov , A. P. 2022, , 666, A137

    2022

  136. [144]

    2023, , 675, A60

    M \"u ller , H., Mus , A., & Lobanov , A. 2023, , 675, A60

    2023

  137. [145]

    & Mart \' -Vidal , I

    Mus , A. & Mart \' -Vidal , I. 2024, , 528, 5537

    2024

  138. [146]

    2024 a , , 688, A100

    Mus , A., M \"u ller , H., & Lobanov , A. 2024 a , , 688, A100

    2024

  139. [147]

    2024 b , , 684, A55

    Mus , A., M \"u ller , H., Mart \' -Vidal , I., & Lobanov , A. 2024 b , , 684, A55

    2024

  140. [148]

    D., & Gammie , C

    Narayan , R., Johnson , M. D., & Gammie , C. F. 2019, , 885, L33

    2019

  141. [149]

    F., & Kulkarni , A

    Narayan , R., S \"A dowski , A., Penna , R. F., & Kulkarni , A. K. 2012, , 426, 3241

    2012

  142. [150]

    2020, , 496, 801

    Natarajan , I., Deane , R., van Bemmel , I., et al. 2020, , 496, 801

    2020

  143. [151]

    M., & Rezzolla , L

    Nathanail , A., Mpisketzis , V., Porth , O., Fromm , C. M., & Rezzolla , L. 2022, , 513, 4267

    2022

  144. [152]

    R., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M

    Olivares , H. R., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M. A., & Porth , O. 2023, , 678, A141

    2023

  145. [153]

    N., Hardee , P

    Owen , F. N., Hardee , P. E., & Cornwell , T. J. 1989, , 340, 698

    1989

  146. [154]

    2022, , 941, 88

    \"O zel , F., Psaltis , D., & Younsi , Z. 2022, , 941, 88

    2022

  147. [155]

    Palumbo , D. C. M., Gelles , Z., Tiede , P., et al. 2022, , 939, 107

    2022

  148. [156]

    Palumbo , D. C. M. & Wong , G. N. 2022, , 929, 49

    2022

  149. [157]

    Palumbo , D. C. M., Wong , G. N., & Prather , B. S. 2020, , 894, 156

    2020

  150. [158]

    H., & Wielgus , M

    Paugnat , H., Lupsasca , A., Vincent , F. H., & Wielgus , M. 2022, , 668, A11

    2022

  151. [159]

    Pearson , T. J. & Readhead , A. C. S. 1984, , 22, 97

    1984

  152. [160]

    Pesce , D. W. 2021, , 161, 178

    2021

  153. [161]

    A., Strokov , V

    Popov , A. A., Strokov , V. N., & Surdyaev , A. A. 2021, Astronomy and Computing, 36, 100467

    2021

  154. [162]

    2007, in 78, Vol

    Pordes, R., Petravick, D., Kramer, B., et al. 2007, in 78, Vol. 78, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 012057

    2007

  155. [163]

    2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    Porth , O., Olivares , H., Mizuno , Y., et al. 2017, Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology, 4, 1

    2017

  156. [164]

    2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3336

    Prather , B., Wong , G., Dhruv , V., et al. 2021, The Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3336

    2021

  157. [165]

    2020, , 125, 141104

    Psaltis , D., Medeiros , L., Christian , P., et al. 2020, , 125, 141104

    2020

  158. [166]

    2022, , 928, 55

    Psaltis , D., \"O zel , F., Medeiros , L., et al. 2022, , 928, 55

    2022

  159. [167]

    2023, , 520, 4867

    Qiu , R., Ricarte , A., Narayan , R., et al. 2023, , 520, 4867

    2023

  160. [168]

    Ramachandran , P., Zoph , B., & Le , Q. V. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1710.05941

    2017 arXiv

  161. [169]

    Readhead , A. C. S. & Wilkinson , P. N. 1978, , 223, 25

    1978

  162. [170]

    M., Quataert , E., & Stone , J

    Ressler , S. M., Quataert , E., & Stone , J. M. 2018, , 478, 3544

    2018

  163. [171]

    M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., Chandra , M., & Gammie , C

    Ressler , S. M., Tchekhovskoy , A., Quataert , E., Chandra , M., & Gammie , C. F. 2015, , 454, 1848

    2015

  164. [172]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 6

    Ricarte , A., Tiede , P., Emami , R., Tamar , A., & Natarajan , P. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 6

    2023

  165. [173]

    Ripperda , B., Bacchini , F., & Philippov , A. A. 2020, , 900, 100

    2020

  166. [174]

    2022, , 924, L32

    Ripperda , B., Liska , M., Chatterjee , K., et al. 2022, , 924, L32

    2022

  167. [175]

    2019, , 485, 299

    Ripperda , B., Porth , O., Sironi , L., & Keppens , R. 2019, , 485, 299

    2019

  168. [176]

    2020, , 636, A5

    Roelofs , F., Janssen , M., Natarajan , I., et al. 2020, , 636, A5

    2020

  169. [177]

    Romein , J. W. 2021, , 656, A52

    2021

  170. [178]

    R., Ressler , S

    Ryan , B. R., Ressler , S. M., Dolence , J. C., Gammie , C., & Quataert , E. 2018, , 864, 126

    2018

  171. [179]

    Salas , L. D. S., Liska , M. T. P., Markoff , S. B., et al. 2025, , 538, 698

    2025

  172. [180]

    & Broderick , A

    SaraerToosi , A. & Broderick , A. E. 2024, , 967, 140

    2024

  173. [181]

    2022, , 925, 13

    Satapathy , K., Psaltis , D., \"O zel , F., et al. 2022, , 925, 13

    2022

  174. [182]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.14151

    Schaeffer , R., Khona , M., Robertson , Z., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2303.14151

    2023 arXiv

  175. [183]

    2022, , 664, A134

    Schmidt , K., Geyer , F., Fr \"o se , S., et al. 2022, , 664, A134

    2022

  176. [184]

    & Del Balso , M

    Sergeev , A. & Del Balso , M. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1802.05799

    2018 arXiv

  177. [185]

    C., Holzman, B., et al

    Sfiligoi, I., Bradley, D. C., Holzman, B., et al. 2009, in 2, Vol. 2, 2009 WRI World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, 428--432

    2009

  178. [186]

    Shatskiy , A. A. & Evgeniev , I. Y. 2019, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 128, 592

    2019

  179. [187]

    Shcherbakov , R. V. & Baganoff , F. K. 2010, , 716, 504

    2010

  180. [188]

    2013, , 429, 3533

    S a dowski , A., Narayan , R., Tchekhovskoy , A., & Zhu , Y. 2013, , 429, 3533

    2013

  181. [189]

    2017, , 466, 705

    S a dowski , A., Wielgus , M., Narayan , R., et al. 2017, , 466, 705

    2017

  182. [190]

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

    2023

  183. [191]

    B., Biretta , J

    Sparks , W. B., Biretta , J. A., & Macchetto , F. 1996, , 473, 254

    1996

  184. [192]

    Stokes , G. G. 1851, Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 9, 399

  185. [193]

    & Bouman , K

    Sun , H. & Bouman , K. L. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2010.14462

    2020 arXiv

  186. [194]

    L., Tiede , P., et al

    Sun , H., Bouman , K. L., Tiede , P., et al. 2022, , 932, 99

    2022

  187. [195]

    V., & Bouman , K

    Sun , H., Dalca , A. V., & Bouman , K. L. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2003.10424

    2020 arXiv

  188. [196]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02986

    The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration . 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.02986

    2024 arXiv

  189. [197]

    R., Moran , J

    Thompson , A. R., Moran , J. M., & Swenson , George W., J. 2017, Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy, 3rd Edition (Springer)

    2017

  190. [198]

    Thyagarajan , N., Hoefs , L., & Wong , O. I. 2024, RAS Techniques and Instruments, 3, 437

    2024

  191. [199]

    2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4457

    Tiede , P. 2022, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 4457

    2022

  192. [200]

    2020, ACM Comput

    Valentin Jospin , L., Buntine , W., Boussaid , F., Laga , H., & Bennamoun , M. 2020, ACM Comput. Surv., 1, arXiv:2007.06823

    2020 arXiv

  193. [201]

    van Cittert , P. H. 1934, Physica, 1, 201

    1934

  194. [202]

    2020, , 636, A94

    van der Gucht , J., Davelaar , J., Hendriks , L., et al. 2020, , 636, A94

    2020

  195. [203]

    J., Ivezic , Z., & Gray , A

    VanderPlas , J., Connolly , A. J., Ivezic , Z., & Gray , A. 2012, in Proceedings of Conference on Intelligent Data Understanding (CIDU, 47--54

    2012

  196. [204]

    H., Gralla , S

    Vincent , F. H., Gralla , S. E., Lupsasca , A., & Wielgus , M. 2022, , 667, A170

    2022

  197. [205]

    C., Hardee , P

    Walker , R. C., Hardee , P. E., Davies , F. B., Ly , C., & Junor , W. 2018, , 855, 128

    2018

  198. [206]

    2013, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, 28, 1058

    Wan, L., Zeiler, M., Zhang, S., Le Cun, Y., & Fergus, R. 2013, Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Machine Learning, 28, 1058

    2013

  199. [207]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.04135

    Wexler , J., Pushkarna , M., Bolukbasi , T., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.04135

    2019 arXiv

  200. [208]

    J., Quataert , E., & Blaes , O

    White , C. J., Quataert , E., & Blaes , O. 2019, , 878, 51

    2019

  201. [209]

    2021, , 104, 124058

    Wielgus , M. 2021, , 104, 124058

    2021

  202. [210]

    2022, , 930, L19

    Wielgus , M., Marchili , N., Mart \' -Vidal , I., et al. 2022, , 930, L19

    2022

  203. [211]

    P., et al

    Witzel , G., Martinez , G., Willner , S. P., et al. 2021, , 917, 73

    2021

  204. [212]

    Wong , G. N. & Gammie , C. F. 2022, , 937, 60

    2022

  205. [213]

    N., Prather , B

    Wong , G. N., Prather , B. S., Dhruv , V., et al. 2022, , 259, 64

    2022

  206. [214]

    Z., Dexter , J., Chen , A

    Yao , P. Z., Dexter , J., Chen , A. Y., Ryan , B. R., & Wong , G. N. 2021, , 507, 4864

    2021

  207. [215]

    W., Wong , G

    Yao-Yu Lin , J., Pesce , D. W., Wong , G. N., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2110.07185

    2021 arXiv

  208. [216]

    N., Prather , B

    Yao-Yu Lin , J., Wong , G. N., Prather , B. S., & Gammie , C. F. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2007.00794

    2020 arXiv

  209. [217]

    I., Zhao , S., Gold , R., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., & Broderick , A

    Yfantis , A. I., Zhao , S., Gold , R., Mo \'s cibrodzka , M., & Broderick , A. E. 2024, , 535, 3181

    2024

  210. [218]

    B., et al

    Yoon , D., Chatterjee , K., Markoff , S. B., et al. 2020, , 499, 3178

    2020

  211. [219]

    W., Dursi, L

    Yu, W., Romein, J. W., Dursi, L. J., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 13

    2023

  212. [220]

    1938, Physica, 5, 785

    Zernike , F. 1938, Physica, 5, 785

    1938

  213. [221]

    2023, , 519, 340

    Zhao , S.-S., Huang , L., Lu , R.-S., & Shen , Z. 2023, , 519, 340

    2023

  214. [222]

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

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

  215. [223]

    write newline

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

Pith tools

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