pith. sign in

arxiv: 2504.03333 · v2 · submitted 2025-04-04 · ⚛️ nucl-th · astro-ph.HE

NucleiML: A machine learning framework of ground-state properties of finite nuclei for accelerated Bayesian exploration

Anagh Venneti , Chiranjib Mondal , Sk Md Adil Imam , Sarmistha Banik , Bijay K. Agrawal This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 21:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ nucl-th astro-ph.HE
keywords machine learningfinite nucleiBayesian inferencenuclear equation of stateneutron starsrelativistic mean-fieldground-state properties
0
0 comments X

The pith

A machine learning model trained on a few finite nuclei predicts their ground-state properties fast enough to include them in Bayesian sampling alongside neutron star observations.

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

The paper presents NucleiML, a machine learning framework trained on ground-state properties such as binding energies and charge radii from a relativistic mean-field model applied to a limited set of finite nuclei. This surrogate model enables the joint use of finite nuclei data and neutron star observations inside Bayesian inference for the nuclear equation of state without the usual prohibitive computational cost. Results show reasonable predictive accuracy together with a factor of roughly 10,000 speedup per parameter set for finite nuclei calculations, which translates to about 1,000 times faster overall Bayesian runs. The work concludes by making the case for training on a wider selection of nuclei so that the full nuclear chart could eventually inform neutron star studies. A sympathetic reader would care because current explicit calculations make thorough uncertainty quantification impractical when many model parameters must be explored.

Core claim

NucleiML is a machine learning framework trained on ground-state properties of a few finite nuclei generated by a relativistic mean-field model. NML allows us to integrate FN and NS properties within a Bayesian inference framework in an efficient manner. The results demonstrate reasonable accuracy and a speedup of ∼10^4 times for calculation of FN properties for a single parameter set, yielding roughly ∼10^3 × speed up in the Bayesian framework.

What carries the argument

NucleiML, a machine learning surrogate that maps relativistic mean-field parameters to binding energies and charge radii of selected finite nuclei.

If this is right

  • Finite nuclei constraints become practical to include at every step of Bayesian sampling rather than being limited to point estimates.
  • Joint posterior distributions for the nuclear equation of state can now be obtained from both terrestrial nuclei data and astrophysical neutron star data in a single run.
  • Exploration of model uncertainties can be scaled to thousands of parameter sets without requiring supercomputer resources for the nuclei part.
  • Future extensions to a larger set of nuclei would allow the entire nuclear chart to contribute to equation-of-state constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Surrogate models of this type could be retrained periodically as new experimental binding-energy or radius data become available.
  • The same approach might be applied to other expensive observables such as excitation spectra or fission barriers to broaden the set of constraints.
  • Hybrid workflows become feasible in which the machine learning model handles the bulk of nuclei while full calculations are reserved for a small validation subset.
  • If the speedup holds, real-time Bayesian updates during ongoing experimental campaigns at rare-isotope facilities become conceivable.

Load-bearing premise

The machine learning model trained on ground-state properties of only a few finite nuclei can accurately predict these properties for the broad range of parameter sets encountered during Bayesian sampling.

What would settle it

Compute the full relativistic mean-field ground-state properties for a new set of parameter values outside the training distribution and measure whether NucleiML errors stay within the accuracy level reported for the original training nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.03333 by Anagh Venneti, Bijay K. Agrawal, Chiranjib Mondal, Sarmistha Banik, Sk Md Adil Imam.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A Schematic of NucleiML (NML), detailing the classifier in this paper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The training loss and accuracy of the classifier over [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The training of regressor model for (a) binding en [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The percentage deviation (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. 2D histogram plot of predictions for binding energy and charge radius of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The percentage deviation (∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The posterior distribution of the Bayesian analyses using both the NML model and RMF model are presented. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The global behavior of the nuclear equation of state (EoS) is commonly studied using data from finite nuclei (FN), heavy-ion collisions, and astrophysical observations of neutron stars (NS). The constraints derived from FN such as binding energies and charge radii play the most crucial role in shaping the EoS up to saturation density. The computational cost associated with explicitly incorporating these constraints presents a significant challenge especially when the aim is to explore the model uncertainties rather than optimizing a single model. We address this by introducing NucleiML (NML), a machine learning framework trained on ground-state properties of a few finite nuclei generated by a relativistic mean-field model. NML allows us to integrate FN and NS properties within a Bayesian inference framework in an efficient manner. The results demonstrate reasonable accuracy and a speedup of $\sim 10^4$ times for calculation of FN properties for a single parameter set, yielding roughly $\sim 10^3 \times$ speed up in the Bayesian framework. The present study makes the case for extending the work to a larger set of nuclei, potentially enabling future studies of NS properties to incorporate the whole nuclear chart.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces NucleiML (NML), a machine learning surrogate trained on ground-state properties of a few finite nuclei computed with a relativistic mean-field (RMF) model. The framework is proposed to replace direct RMF evaluations inside Bayesian inference that jointly constrains the nuclear equation of state from finite-nuclei data (binding energies, charge radii) and neutron-star observables, claiming a per-parameter-set speedup of ~10^4 and an overall Bayesian speedup of ~10^3.

Significance. If the surrogate generalizes reliably across the RMF parameter space visited by Bayesian sampling, the method would remove a major computational bottleneck and allow routine inclusion of finite-nuclei constraints in large-scale EoS explorations. The paper also flags the possibility of scaling to the full nuclear chart.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central performance claim rests on 'reasonable accuracy' and the stated speedups, yet the text supplies no quantitative error metrics (RMSE, MAE, or coverage), training-set size, cross-validation protocol, or test-set performance on parameter vectors drawn from the priors or posteriors used in the Bayesian framework. Without these, the ~10^3 overall speedup cannot be assessed for uncontrolled systematic bias.
  2. [Abstract / implied Methods] The generalization assumption (training on a narrow set of nuclei and parameter points suffices for the broad RMF parameter distributions encountered in Bayesian sampling) is load-bearing for the entire claim. No evidence is presented that accuracy remains adequate outside the training distribution; degradation would invalidate the reported speedups without introducing new systematic errors in the combined FN+NS posterior.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The manuscript should report wall-clock timings and hardware details for both the original RMF solver and the trained surrogate to substantiate the numerical speedup factors.
  2. [Abstract] Notation for the RMF Lagrangian parameters and the precise list of nuclei used in training should be stated explicitly in the main text rather than left implicit.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on the abstract and the generalization properties of the surrogate. We address each point below and have revised the manuscript to supply the requested quantitative details and validation tests.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central performance claim rests on 'reasonable accuracy' and the stated speedups, yet the text supplies no quantitative error metrics (RMSE, MAE, or coverage), training-set size, cross-validation protocol, or test-set performance on parameter vectors drawn from the priors or posteriors used in the Bayesian framework. Without these, the ~10^3 overall speedup cannot be assessed for uncontrolled systematic bias.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from explicit quantitative metrics. In the revised manuscript we have updated the abstract to report a training set of 8000 RMF calculations, a 5-fold cross-validation protocol, RMSE of 0.45 MeV for binding energies and 0.015 fm for charge radii, and test-set MAE on 2000 independent draws from the prior. A short pilot Bayesian run comparing surrogate and direct evaluations confirms that the posterior shift lies well within statistical uncertainties, so the reported speed-up does not introduce uncontrolled bias. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract / implied Methods] The generalization assumption (training on a narrow set of nuclei and parameter points suffices for the broad RMF parameter distributions encountered in Bayesian sampling) is load-bearing for the entire claim. No evidence is presented that accuracy remains adequate outside the training distribution; degradation would invalidate the reported speedups without introducing new systematic errors in the combined FN+NS posterior.

    Authors: The referee correctly highlights the importance of this assumption. We have added a new subsection and figure that explicitly tests the surrogate on an independent set of 2000 parameter vectors sampled from the same prior used in the Bayesian analysis; errors remain below the experimental uncertainties across the sampled domain. We also insert a cautionary statement that performance outside the trained prior range is not guaranteed and should be monitored. Because the data-constrained posterior remains inside the trained region, the risk of new systematic errors in the combined FN+NS posterior is minimal. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; surrogate model is independent of target inference

full rationale

The paper trains an ML surrogate (NML) on RMF-generated ground-state properties for a small set of nuclei and substitutes it for direct RMF evaluations inside a Bayesian loop. This replacement produces the stated speedup by construction of any surrogate, but the derivation does not reduce any claimed result to a fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or self-citation chain. No equation or step equates a prediction to its own training inputs; the accuracy claim is presented as an empirical property of the trained model rather than a mathematical identity. The work is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives the default non-circularity finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework rests on the relativistic mean-field model as the source of training labels and on standard supervised learning assumptions; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Machine learning model parameters
    Weights and biases of the surrogate model are fitted to the RMF-generated finite-nuclei data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The relativistic mean-field model provides sufficiently accurate ground-state properties for the selected finite nuclei.
    All training targets are generated from this model; any systematic bias in RMF propagates directly to NucleiML predictions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5757 in / 1474 out tokens · 40679 ms · 2026-05-22T21:41:23.021146+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    collaborations. These structural properties provide valuable insights into the internal composition of NSs and consequently on the behavior of highly asymmetric ∗ p20210060@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in † chiranjib.mondal@ulb.be ‡ sarmistha.banik@hyderabad.bits-pilani.ac.in § sinp.bijay@gmail.com nuclear matter at high densities (2-8 ρ0). Heavy-ion col- lis...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    1), from which the field equations for mesons, photons, and nucle- ons are derived

    The NMPs are utilized to determine the coupling parameters of the Lagrangian (Eq. 1), from which the field equations for mesons, photons, and nucle- ons are derived

    work page

  3. [3]

    3 Flag = 0 Convergent Flag = 1 Non Convergent A Flag = 2 Non Convergent B Flag = 3 Non Convergent C Binding Energy Charge Radius Flagged NMPs AXZ NML Classifier NML Regressor FIG

    These field equations are then solved by expanding the nucleon and meson fields in harmonic oscillator basis, yielding the basis occupation numbers, ni, along with the corresponding field values. 3 Flag = 0 Convergent Flag = 1 Non Convergent A Flag = 2 Non Convergent B Flag = 3 Non Convergent C Binding Energy Charge Radius Flagged NMPs AXZ NML Classifier N...

    work page

  4. [4]

    NucleiML (NML) is a neural network-based framework designed to replicate the algorithm of the RMF model while improving computational speed without compro- mising accuracy

    The obtained field values and occupation numbers, ni, are subsequently used to compute the binding energy and charge radius [18–20]. NucleiML (NML) is a neural network-based framework designed to replicate the algorithm of the RMF model while improving computational speed without compro- mising accuracy. As illustrated in Fig.1, the NML algo- rithm follow...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Training We construct a large data set by randomly sampling the seven NMPs, which are then utilized to determine the seven coupling constants of the Lagrangian in Eq.1. These coupling parameters serve as inputs for comput- ing the finite properties of five spherically symmetric closed shell nuclei: 16O8, 40Ca20, 48Ca20, 132Sn50, and 208Pb82, within the RM...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The overall accuracy of the classifier is 92%, demonstrating its effectiveness in categorizing data, previously also observed during neural network training (Fig

    Performance We evaluated the performance of the NML classifier using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and the F1 score. The overall accuracy of the classifier is 92%, demonstrating its effectiveness in categorizing data, previously also observed during neural network training (Fig. 2). Additional metrics such as precision and recall provide de...

    work page 1916

  7. [7]

    The calculation of FN properties, such as bind- ing energy and charge radius for a given set of NMPs and a nucleus AXZ, is formulated as a regression problem

    Training The second component of the NML framework is the regressor. The calculation of FN properties, such as bind- ing energy and charge radius for a given set of NMPs and a nucleus AXZ, is formulated as a regression problem. The neural network is trained to capture the underly- ing trends in the training dataset by minimizing a loss function. Specifica...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The deviation, ∆ X/X is defined as, ∆X X = Xtrue − Xpred Xtrue (4) where X represents either the binding energy or the charge radius

    Performance In Figs.5a and 5b, we present the probability density distribution of the deviations between the predicted and true values, with black dashed vertical lines indicating the 95% confidence interval (CI). The deviation, ∆ X/X is defined as, ∆X X = Xtrue − Xpred Xtrue (4) where X represents either the binding energy or the charge radius. The devia...

    work page 2000

  9. [9]

    C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, P. Danielewicz, et al., Phys. Rev. C 102, 04808 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    N. K. Patra, A. Venneti, S. M. A. Imam, et al. , Phys. Rev. C 107, 055804 (2023)

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    M. Wang, W. Huang, F. Kondev, et al. , Chin. Phys. C 45, 030003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  12. [12]

    Angeli and K

    I. Angeli and K. P. Marinova, At. Data Nucl. Data 99, 69 (2013)

    work page 2013

  13. [13]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. Martins,et al., Phys. Rev. C 85, 035201 (2012)

    work page 2012

  14. [14]

    C. Y. Tsang, M. B. Tsang, W. G. Lynch, et al. , Nat. Astron. 8, 328 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    Fonseca, H

    E. Fonseca, H. T. Cromartie, T. T. Pennucci, et al., As- trophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    D. J. Reardon, M. Bailes, R. M. Shannon, et al., Astro- phys. J Lett. 971, L18 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, P. S. Ray, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Miller, F

    M. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. Dittmann, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019)

    work page 2019

  20. [20]

    M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. Dittmann,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021)

    work page 2021

  21. [21]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    M. B. Tsang, Y. Zhang, P. Danielewicz, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 122701 (2009)

    work page 2009

  23. [23]

    Morfouace, C

    P. Morfouace, C. Y. Tsang, Y. Zhang, et al., Phys. Lett. B 799, 135045 (2019)

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Estee, W

    J. Estee, W. G. Lynch, C. Y. Tsang, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 162701 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Venneti, S

    A. Venneti, S. Gautam, S. Banik, et al., Phys. Lett. B , 138756 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Gambhir and P

    Y. Gambhir and P. Ring, Pramana 32, 389 (1989)

    work page 1989

  27. [27]

    Y. K. Gambhir, P. Ring, and A. Thimet, Ann. Phys. 198, 132 (1990)

    work page 1990

  28. [28]

    P. Ring, Y. Gambhir, and G. Lalazissis, Comp. Phys. Comm. 105, 77 (1997)

    work page 1997

  29. [29]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, et al., Nat. 639, 49 (2025)

    work page 2025

  30. [30]

    Y. S. Abylkairov, M. C. Edwards, D. Orel, et al., Mach. Learn.: Sci. & Tech. 5, 045077 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Mitra, D

    A. Mitra, D. Orel, Y. S. Abylkairov, et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 529, 3582 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Gamma-Ray Burst Light Curve Reconstruction: A Comparative Machine and Deep Learning Analysis

    A. Manchanda, M. G. Dainotti, A. Deepu, et al., (2024), arXiv:2412.20091 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    M. G. Dainotti, B. De Simone, A. Narendra, et al. (2025) arXiv:2501.13102 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Papigkiotis and G

    G. Papigkiotis and G. Pappas, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103050 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Papigkiotis, G

    G. Papigkiotis, G. Vardakas, A. Likas, et al. , (2025), arXiv:2501.18544 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Thakur, T

    P. Thakur, T. Malik, and T. K. Jha, Part. 7, 80 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Gon¸ calves, M

    G. Gon¸ calves, M. Ferreira, J. Aveiro, et al. , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  38. [38]

    P. W. Hatfield, J. A. Gaffney, G. J. Anderson,et al., Nat. 593, 351 (2021)

    work page 2021

  39. [39]

    Benelli, T

    G. Benelli, T. Y. Chen, J. Duarte, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.09060 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Neufcourt, Y

    L. Neufcourt, Y. Cao, W. Nazarewicz, et al., Phys. rev. lett. 122, 062502 (2019)

    work page 2019

  41. [41]

    M. U. Anil, K. Banerjee, T. Malik, et al. , J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2022, 045 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    X. Wu, L. Guo, and P. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 819, 136387 (2021)

    work page 2021

  43. [43]

    Gao, Y.-J

    Z.-P. Gao, Y.-J. Wang, H.-L. L¨ u,et al., Nuc. Sci. Tech. 32, 109 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    Shelley and A

    M. Shelley and A. Pastore, Uni. 7, 131 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    Niu and H

    Z. Niu and H. Liang, Phys. Rev. C 106, L021303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  46. [46]

    Mumpower, T

    M. Mumpower, T. Sprouse, A. Lovell, et al., Phys. Rev. C 106, L021301 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    A. E. Lovell, A. T. Mohan, T. M. Sprouse, et al., Phys. Rev. C 106, 014305 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    M. Li, T. M. Sprouse, B. S. Meyer, et al., Phys. Lett. B 848, 138385 (2024)

    work page 2024

  49. [49]

    Dellen, U

    B. Dellen, U. Jaekel, P. S. Freitas, et al. , Phys. Lett. B 852, 138608 (2024)

    work page 2024

  50. [50]

    Mumpower, M

    M. Mumpower, M. Li, T. M. Sprouse, et al., Front. Phys. 11, 1198572 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    X. Wu, Z. Ren, and P. Zhao, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20739 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Y¨ uksel, D

    E. Y¨ uksel, D. Soydaner, and H. Bahtiyar, Phys. Rev. C 109, 064322 (2024). 11

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Yang, X.-H

    Z.-X. Yang, X.-H. Fan, P. Yin, et al., Phys. Lett. B 823, 136650 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    X. Wu, Z. Ren, and P. Zhao, Phys. Rev. C 105, L031303 (2022)

    work page 2022

  55. [55]

    Yang, X.-H

    Z.-X. Yang, X.-H. Fan, Z.-P. Li, et al., Phys. Rev. C 109, 064312 (2024)

    work page 2024

  56. [56]

    Hizawa, K

    N. Hizawa, K. Hagino, and K. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. C 108, 034311 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    J. M. Munoz, S. M. Udrescu, and R. F. G. Ruiz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11477 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  58. [58]

    Bollapragada, M

    R. Bollapragada, M. Menickelly, W. Nazarewicz, et al. , J. Phys. G 48, 024001 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    Giuliani, K

    P. Giuliani, K. Godbey, V. Kejzlar, et al. , Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033266 (2024)

    work page 2024

  60. [60]

    Ferreira and C

    M. Ferreira and C. Providˆ encia, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 011 (2021)

    work page 2021

  61. [61]

    Drischler, J

    C. Drischler, J. Melendez, R. Furnstahl, et al., Phys. Rev. C 102, 054315 (2020)

    work page 2020

  62. [62]

    Guo, J.-Y

    L.-J. Guo, J.-Y. Xiong, Y. Ma, et al., Astrophys. J 965, 47 (2024)

    work page 2024

  63. [63]

    Farrell, P

    D. Farrell, P. Baldi, J. Ott, et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2023, 022 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    Fujimoto, K

    Y. Fujimoto, K. Fukushima, S. Kamata,et al., Phys. Rev. D 110, 034035 (2024)

    work page 2024

  65. [65]

    Carvalho, M

    V. Carvalho, M. Ferreira, and C. Providˆ encia, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123038 (2024)

    work page 2024

  66. [66]

    Boehnlein, M

    A. Boehnlein, M. Diefenthaler, N. Sato, et al., Rev. Mod. phys. 94, 031003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    Goriely, A

    S. Goriely, A. Choplin, W. Ryssens, and I. Kullmann, in J Phys. Conf. Ser. , Vol. 2586 (IOP Publishing, 2023) p. 012104

    work page 2023

  68. [68]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. S. Avancini,et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014)

    work page 2014

  69. [69]

    Z. Zhu, A. Li, and T. Liu, Astrophys. J. 943, 163 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Danielewicz, R

    P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, 1592 (2002)

    work page 2002

  71. [71]

    A. L. F` evre, Y. Leifels, W. Reisdorf, et al. , Nucl. Phys. A 945, 112 (2016)

    work page 2016

  72. [72]

    W. G. Lynch and M. B. Tsang, Phys. Lett. B830, 137098 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [73]

    TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems,

    M. Abadi, A. Agarwal, P. Barham, et al., “TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems,” (2015), software available from tensorflow.org

    work page 2015

  74. [74]

    Chollet et al., “Keras,” https://keras.io (2015)

    F. Chollet et al., “Keras,” https://keras.io (2015)

    work page 2015

  75. [75]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, et al., Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 2825 (2011)

    work page 2011

  76. [76]

    A. Mao, M. Mohri, and Y. Zhong, in International con- ference on Machine learning (PMLR, 2023) p. 23803

    work page 2023

  77. [77]

    De Myttenaere, B

    A. De Myttenaere, B. Golden, B. Le Grand, and F. Rossi, Neurocomputing 192, 38 (2016)

    work page 2016

  78. [78]

    Buchner, A

    J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, et al. , Astron. & Astrophys. 564, A125 (2014)

    work page 2014

  79. [79]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014