pith. the verified trust layer for science. sign in

arxiv: 2507.09040 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.SR · astro-ph.HE

R-process heating implementation in hydrodynamic simulations with neural networks

Oliver Just (1 , 2) , Zewei Xiong (1) , Gabriel Mart\'inez-Pinedo (1 , 3) ((1) GSI Darmstadt , (2) ABBL RIKEN , (3) IKP Darmstadt) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 04:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE
keywords r-process heatingneutron-star mergershydrodynamic simulationsneural networksnucleosynthesiskilonovaejectamachine learning
0
0 comments X p. Extension

The pith

Neural networks emulate r-process heating in hydrodynamic simulations by evolving only a few composition quantities whose rates come from trained models.

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

This paper introduces RHINE, a method to include the energy released by the rapid neutron-capture process inside fluid simulations of neutron-star mergers without solving full nuclear networks at every step. The scheme evolves a small number of extra variables that track composition and obtains their rates of change from neural networks trained on many detailed nucleosynthesis trajectories. Tests in spherical wind models and long-term merger simulations show that the heating energy matches post-processing results to within less than 10 percent. With this heating included, black-hole torus ejecta become 40 percent more massive and receive the strongest velocity boost, while the resulting kilonova grows significantly brighter.

Core claim

RHINE emulates the r-process and its energy release in hydrodynamic simulations by evolving only a few additional composition quantities whose nuclear rates of change are supplied at each location and time step by neural networks trained on a large set of full nuclear-network trajectories. Direct comparisons with post-processing nucleosynthesis calculations in spherically symmetric wind runs and long-term neutron-star merger models confirm agreement in the released heating energy to within less than 10 percent. Average energy releases per baryon are 2.3 MeV in dynamical ejecta, 0.7 MeV in NS-torus ejecta, and 2.1 MeV in black-hole torus ejecta; the latter component also becomes 40 percent 40

What carries the argument

RHINE, the neural-network scheme that supplies nuclear rates of change for a handful of composition variables so that r-process heating can be computed self-consistently inside the hydrodynamic time steps.

If this is right

  • R-process heating releases on average 2.3 MeV per baryon in dynamical ejecta of neutron-star mergers.
  • NS-torus ejecta release 0.7 MeV per baryon on average.
  • BH-torus ejecta release 2.1 MeV per baryon, become 40 percent more massive, and experience the strongest velocity boost.
  • Nucleosynthesis yields change only mildly, yet the kilonova becomes significantly brighter once the BH-torus ejecta become visible.
  • The method can be added to existing hydrodynamics codes using the provided pre-trained networks and source-term routines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The supplied pre-trained networks allow other groups to add self-consistent r-process heating to their own merger or wind models without retraining.
  • Reduced computational cost opens the door to higher-resolution or longer-duration simulations that were previously limited by network expense.
  • The same few-variable-plus-network pattern could be tested on other nucleosynthesis heating channels in different explosive events.

Load-bearing premise

The neural networks, trained on trajectories from full nuclear calculations, correctly predict the rates of change for the tracked composition quantities under the thermodynamic conditions met during the hydrodynamic evolution.

What would settle it

A hydrodynamic simulation run with a full nuclear network in place of the neural networks that yields a total heating energy differing by more than 10 percent from the RHINE result would falsify the reported accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.09040 by 2), (2) ABBL RIKEN, 3) ((1) GSI Darmstadt, (3) IKP Darmstadt), Gabriel Mart\'inez-Pinedo (1, Oliver Just (1, Zewei Xiong (1).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Velocity boost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Average mass excess per baryon (cf. Eq. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Sketch illustrating the concept of RHINE. In ad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic picture illustrating the architecture of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustration of the four thermodynamic regimes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Global properties of wind models 1–3 with different initial electron fractions, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Distributions of mass fraction as function of mass number obtained from post-processing the steady-state wind models [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Global properties of the neutron-star merger simulations and post-processing calculations as functions of time post [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Histograms depicting the mass distribution in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Nucleosynthesis yields as functions of mass number in the material ejected in the neutron-star merger simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Snapshots showing the distribution of density (left sides) and average mass excess per baryon (right sides) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Homology parameter as function time measuring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Properties of the kilonova signal for the neutron-star merger models without r-process heating (black lines) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Neutron-rich outflows in neutron-star mergers (NSMs) or other explosive events can be subject to substantial heating through the release of rest-mass energy in the course of the rapid neutron-capture (r-) process. This r-process heating can potentially have a significant impact on the dynamics determining the velocity distribution of the ejecta, but due to the complexity of detailed nuclear networks required to describe the r-process self-consistently, hydrodynamic models of NSMs often neglect r-process heating or include it using crude parametrizations. In this work, we present a conceptually new method, RHINE, for emulating the r-process and concomitant energy release in hydrodynamic simulations via machine-learning algorithms. The method requires the evolution of only a few additional quantities characterizing the composition, of which the nuclear rates of change are obtained at each location and time step from neural networks trained by a large set of trajectories from full nuclear-network calculations. The scheme is tested by comparing spherically symmetric wind simulations and long-term simulations of NSMs using RHINE with post-processing results from nucleosynthesis calculations, showing agreement in the released heating energy to within <10%. In our NSM models on average about 2.3MeV, 0.7MeV, and 2.1MeV are released per baryon in dynamical ejecta, NS-torus ejecta, and black-hole (BH) torus ejecta, respectively. The strongest velocity boost is observed for BH-torus ejecta, which also become 40% more massive with r-process heating. The nucleosynthesis yields are only mildly affected by r-process heating, but the kilonova gets significantly brighter once the BH-torus ejecta become visible. RHINE can be readily implemented in existing hydrodynamics codes using pre-trained machine-learning data and routines for source-term prediction that we provide online.

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 RHINE, a neural-network emulation scheme for incorporating r-process heating into hydrodynamic simulations of neutron-rich outflows. The method evolves a small number of additional composition variables whose nuclear rates of change are supplied at each cell and time step by networks trained on trajectories from full nuclear-network calculations. Validation consists of comparisons between RHINE-enabled spherically symmetric wind runs and long-term NSM simulations against post-processing nucleosynthesis calculations, with reported agreement in integrated heating energy to within <10%. The paper further quantifies average energy release per baryon in dynamical, NS-torus, and BH-torus ejecta and describes consequent changes in ejecta mass, velocity, and kilonova brightness.

Significance. If the central accuracy claim holds, the work supplies a practical route to self-consistent r-process heating in existing hydrodynamics codes at modest computational cost. This is relevant for modeling the velocity distribution of NSM ejecta and the resulting kilonova signals. The public release of pre-trained models and source-term routines is a clear strength that aids reproducibility and community adoption.

major comments (2)
  1. [Validation and testing] The quantitative support for the <10% agreement claim rests on the assumption that networks trained on fixed full-network trajectories remain accurate when the thermodynamic paths are altered by the heating they themselves produce. No coverage analysis or distribution comparison of the (log T, log ρ, Y_e) points encountered in the self-consistent RHINE runs versus the training set is described. Because heating modifies the expansion timescale and thermodynamic evolution, this leaves open the possibility that the reported agreement is limited to the specific tested cases rather than generally valid. Please add an explicit check of thermodynamic coverage or extrapolation diagnostics in the validation section.
  2. [Methods] Details on network architecture, training/validation data splits, regularization, and the precise definition of the reduced composition variables are not provided at a level that allows independent assessment of robustness or extrapolation behavior. These elements are load-bearing for the central claim that the networks accurately predict dY_i/dt under hydrodynamic conditions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract reports average energy releases of 2.3 MeV, 0.7 MeV, and 2.1 MeV per baryon but does not restate the per-baryon qualifier in the same sentence; a small rephrasing would improve clarity.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels should explicitly state whether the plotted heating rates or energy releases are instantaneous or time-integrated to avoid ambiguity when comparing to post-processing results.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and for recognizing the potential utility of the RHINE approach. We respond to each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Validation and testing] The quantitative support for the <10% agreement claim rests on the assumption that networks trained on fixed full-network trajectories remain accurate when the thermodynamic paths are altered by the heating they themselves produce. No coverage analysis or distribution comparison of the (log T, log ρ, Y_e) points encountered in the self-consistent RHINE runs versus the training set is described. Because heating modifies the expansion timescale and thermodynamic evolution, this leaves open the possibility that the reported agreement is limited to the specific tested cases rather than generally valid. Please add an explicit check of thermodynamic coverage or extrapolation diagnostics in the validation section.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit comparison of the thermodynamic conditions sampled in the self-consistent RHINE runs against the training trajectories is a useful addition for assessing potential extrapolation. The submitted manuscript did not contain such a distribution analysis. In the revised version we will add this check, presenting the ranges and histograms of log T, log ρ, and Y_e encountered during the hydrodynamic evolution alongside the corresponding distributions from the training set. This will quantify the overlap and any regions of extrapolation while preserving the existing <10% integrated-energy comparisons. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methods] Details on network architecture, training/validation data splits, regularization, and the precise definition of the reduced composition variables are not provided at a level that allows independent assessment of robustness or extrapolation behavior. These elements are load-bearing for the central claim that the networks accurately predict dY_i/dt under hydrodynamic conditions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the Methods section of the original submission gave only a high-level overview and omitted several implementation specifics needed for full reproducibility and robustness evaluation. The revised manuscript will expand this section to specify the network architecture (number of hidden layers, neurons per layer, and activation functions), the exact training/validation/test split fractions, the regularization techniques used (including any dropout or weight-decay values), and the precise definitions and initial values of the reduced composition variables. The associated training code and data splits will also be released with the existing pre-trained models. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: emulation trained externally and validated against independent post-processing

full rationale

The derivation chain begins with training neural networks on a large set of trajectories computed with full nuclear networks (external data), then deploys the resulting source-term predictors inside hydrodynamic runs for a reduced set of composition variables. Validation proceeds by direct numerical comparison of integrated heating energies between the RHINE-enabled hydro simulations and separate post-processing nucleosynthesis calculations on the same trajectories, reporting agreement to within <10%. None of the load-bearing steps—network training, on-the-fly rate prediction, or the reported agreement metric—reduces by construction to a quantity defined inside the paper itself or to a self-citation chain. The method therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on training data from detailed nuclear calculations and the assumption that a small number of tracked quantities suffice to capture the heating; the neural-network weights constitute fitted parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • Neural network weights and biases
    Determined by training the networks on a large set of trajectories from full nuclear-network calculations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A small number of additional quantities characterizing the composition are sufficient to track r-process evolution and energy release when their rates are supplied by neural networks.
    This reduction from full networks to a few variables is the enabling premise of the RHINE scheme.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5909 in / 1316 out tokens · 53342 ms · 2026-05-19T04:29:49.086657+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Exploring the diversity of kilonovae with 3D radiative transfer I. The polar direction

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Dynamical ejecta from neutron star mergers reproduce key spectral properties of AT2017gfo in polar views, with features from Sr II, La III and other ions appearing at earlier times than observed.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 114 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    lanthanide curtain

    therefore remains puzzling. Another aspect related to the density structure is con- nected to the question whether r-process heating can pos- sibly delay or shorten the time for the distribution to become homologous, i.e. to freeze out in velocity space such that r ∝ v. A suitable measure for the degree of homology is the ratio between the current time an...

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017)

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    S. J. Smartt, T. W. Chen, A. Jerkstrand, M. Cough- lin, E. Kankare, S. A. Sim, M. Fraser, C. Inserra, K. Maguire, K. C. Chambers, M. E. Huber, T. Krüh- ler, G. Leloudas, M. Magee, L. J. Shingles, K. W. Smith, D. R. Young, J. Tonry, R. Kotak, A. Gal-Yam, J. D. Lyman, D. S. Homan, C. Agliozzo, J. P. An- derson, C. R. Angus, C. Ashall, C. Barbarino, F. E. Ba...

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Tanaka, Y

    M. Tanaka, Y. Utsumi, P. A. Mazzali, N. Tominaga, M. Yoshida, Y. Sekiguchi, T. Morokuma, K. Moto- hara, K. Ohta, K. S. Kawabata, F. Abe, K. Aoki, Y. Asakura, S. Baar, S. Barway, I. A. Bond, M. Doi, T. Fujiyoshi, H. Furusawa, S. Honda, Y. Itoh, M. Kawa- bata, N. Kawai, J. H. Kim, C.-H. Lee, S. Miyazaki, K.Morihana, H.Nagashima, T.Nagayama, T.Nakaoka, F. Na...

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Frebel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence 68, 237 (2018)

    A. Frebel, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence 68, 237 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Lombardo, C

    L. Lombardo, C. J. Hansen, F. Rizzuti, G. Cescutti, L. I. Mashonkina, P. François, P. Bonifacio, E. Caffau, A. Alencastro Puls, R. Fernandes de Melo, A. J. Gal- lagher, Á. Skúladóttir, A. J. Koch-Hansen, and L. Sbor- done, A&A 693, A293 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    S. Shen, R. J. Cooke, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, P. Madau, L. Mayer, and J. Guedes, ApJ807, 115 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    van de Voort, E

    F. van de Voort, E. Quataert, P. F. Hopkins, D. Kereš, and C.-A. Faucher-Giguère, MNRAS447, 140 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Kobayashi, A

    C. Kobayashi, A. I. Karakas, and M. Lugaro, ApJ900, 179 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    Baiotti and L

    L. Baiotti and L. Rezzolla, Reports on Progress in Physics 80, 096901 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    M. D. Duez and Y. Zlochower, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 016902 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Hotokezaka, Annual Review of Nu- clear and Particle Science69, 41 (2019)

    work page 2019

  13. [13]

    Bernuzzi, General Relativity and Gravitation52, 108 (2020)

    S. Bernuzzi, General Relativity and Gravitation52, 108 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    H. T. Janka and A. Bauswein, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2212.07498 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    Foucart, Living Reviews in Computational Astro- physics 9, 1 (2023)

    F. Foucart, Living Reviews in Computational Astro- physics 9, 1 (2023)

    work page 2023

  16. [16]

    D. M. Siegel, Nature Reviews Physics4, 306 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    Rosswog and O

    S. Rosswog and O. Korobkin, Annalen der Physik536, 2200306 (2024)

    work page 2024

  18. [18]

    C. J. Horowitz, A. Arcones, B. Côté, I. Dill- mann, W. Nazarewicz, I. U. Roederer, H. Schatz, A. Aprahamian, D. Atanasov, A. Bauswein, J. Bliss, M. Brodeur, J. A. Clark, A. Frebel, F. Foucart, C. J. Hansen, O. Just, A. Kankainen, G. C. McLaughlin, J. M. Kelly, S. N. Liddick, D. M. Lee, J. Lippuner, D. Martin, J. Mendoza-Temis, B. D. Metzger, M. R. Mumpowe...

    work page 2018

  19. [19]

    Arnould and S

    M. Arnould and S. Goriely, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 112, 103766 (2020)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Martínez-Pinedo, and F. K. Thielemann, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 015002 (2021), arXiv:1901.01410

    work page arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    E. M. Holmbeck, T. M. Sprouse, and M. R. Mumpower, The European Physical Journal A59, 28 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

    B. D. Metzger, G. Martínez-Pinedo, S. Darbha, E. Quataert, A. Arcones, D. Kasen, R. Thomas, P. Nu- gent, I. V. Panov, and N. T. Zinner, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 406, 2650 (2010), arXiv:1001.5029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    L. F. Roberts, D. Kasen, W. H. Lee, and E. Ramirez- Ruiz, Astrophys. J. Lett.736, L21+ (2011)

    work page 2011

  24. [24]

    B. D. Metzger, Living Reviews in Relativity 23, 1 (2019)

    work page 2019

  25. [25]

    Burns, Living Reviews in Relativity23, 4 (2020)

    E. Burns, Living Reviews in Relativity23, 4 (2020)

    work page 2020

  26. [26]

    Kasen, R

    D. Kasen, R. Fernández, and B. D. Metzger, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.450, 1777 (2015)

    work page 2015

  27. [27]

    J. M. Miller, B. R. Ryan, J. C. Dolence, A. Burrows, C. J. Fontes, C. L. Fryer, O. Korobkin, J. Lippuner, M. R. Mumpower, and R. T. Wollaeger, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023008 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    Kawaguchi, S

    K. Kawaguchi, S. Fujibayashi, M. Shibata, M. Tanaka, and S. Wanajo, ApJ913, 100 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    O. Just, V. Vijayan, Z. Xiong, S. Goriely, T. Soul- tanis, A. Bauswein, J. Guilet, H.-T. Janka, and G. Martínez-Pinedo, Astrophys. J. Lett. 951, L12 (2023), arXiv:2302.10928

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Klion, A

    H. Klion, A. Tchekhovskoy, D. Kasen, A. Kathirgama- raju, E. Quataert, and R. Fernández, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc. 510, 2968 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    L. J. Shingles, C. E. Collins, V. Vijayan, A. Flörs, O. Just, G. Leck, Z. Xiong, A. Bauswein, G. Martínez- Pinedo, and S. A. Sim, Astrophys. J. Lett. 954, L41 (2023), arXiv:2306.17612

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Combi and D

    L. Combi and D. M. Siegel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 231402 (2023)

    work page 2023

  33. [33]

    Curtis, P

    S. Curtis, P. Bosch, P. Mösta, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, R. Haas, and E. Schnetter, The Astrophysi- cal Journal Letters961, L26 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Magistrelli, S

    F. Magistrelli, S. Bernuzzi, A. Perego, and D. Radice, Astrophys. J. Lett.974, L5 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [35]

    W. H. Lee, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, and D. Page, ApJ632, 421 (2005)

    work page 2005

  36. [36]

    Fernández and B

    R. Fernández and B. D. Metzger, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 435, 502 (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    D. M. Siegel and B. D. Metzger, ApJ858, 52 (2018)

    work page 2018

  38. [38]

    Haddadi, M

    M. Haddadi, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, T. Ramirez, R. Fernández, A. L. Knight, J. Jesse, F. Hébert, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 085008 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Fernández, O

    R. Fernández, O. Just, Z. Xiong, and G. Martínez- Pinedo, Phys. Rev. D110, 023001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  40. [40]

    Rosswog, O

    S. Rosswog, O. Korobkin, A. Arcones, F.-K. Thiele- mann, and T. Piran, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.439, 744 (2014)

    work page 2014

  41. [41]

    Fernández, E

    R. Fernández, E. Quataert, J. Schwab, D. Kasen, and S. Rosswog, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.449, 390 (2015)

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    O. Just, A. Bauswein, R. A. Pulpillo, S. Goriely, and H.- T. Janka, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.448, 541 (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    M.-R. Wu, R. Fernández, G. Martínez-Pinedo, and B. D. Metzger, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 463, 2323 (2016), arXiv:1607.05290 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  44. [44]

    Desai, B

    D. Desai, B. D. Metzger, and F. Foucart, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 4404 (2019)

    work page 2019

  45. [45]

    Foucart, P

    F. Foucart, P. Mösta, T. Ramirez, A. J. Wright, S. Darbha, and D. Kasen, Phys. Rev. D104, 123010 (2021)

    work page 2021

  46. [46]

    Darbha, D

    S. Darbha, D. Kasen, F. Foucart, and D. J. Price, ApJ 915, 69 (2021)

    work page 2021

  47. [47]

    Sneppen, D

    A. Sneppen, D. Watson, A. Bauswein, O. Just, R. Ko- tak, E. Nakar, D. Poznanski, and S. Sim, Nature614, 436 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Rosswog, MNRAS376, L48 (2007)

    S. Rosswog, MNRAS376, L48 (2007)

    work page 2007

  49. [49]

    B. D. Metzger, A. Arcones, E. Quataert, and G. Martínez-Pinedo, MNRAS 402, 2771 (2010), 26 arXiv:0908.0530 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [50]

    Ishizaki, K

    W. Ishizaki, K. Kiuchi, K. Ioka, and S. Wanajo, ApJ 922, 185 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Musolino, R

    C. Musolino, R. Duqué, and L. Rezzolla, ApJ966, L31 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Kawaguchi, N

    K. Kawaguchi, N. Domoto, S. Fujibayashi, H. Hami- dani, K. Hayashi, M. Shibata, M. Tanaka, and S. Wanajo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.535, 3711 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [53]

    Rosenblatt, Psychological Review65, 386 (1958)

    F. Rosenblatt, Psychological Review65, 386 (1958)

    work page 1958

  54. [54]

    LeCun, B

    Y. LeCun, B. Boser, J. S. Denker, D. Henderson, R. E. Howard, W. Hubbard, and L. D. Jackel, Neural Com- putation 1, 541 (1989)

    work page 1989

  55. [55]

    Hornik, M

    K. Hornik, M. Stinchcombe, and H. White, Neural Net- works 2, 359 (1989)

    work page 1989

  56. [56]

    Cybenko, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Sys- tems 2, 303 (1989)

    G. Cybenko, Mathematics of Control, Signals and Sys- tems 2, 303 (1989)

    work page 1989

  57. [57]

    Deep Learning in Neural Networks: An Overview

    J. Schmidhuber, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1404.7828 (2014)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  58. [58]

    Soultanis, K

    T. Soultanis, K. Maltsev, A. Bauswein, K. Chatziioan- nou, F. K. Röpke, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023002 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    G. M. Mirouh, G. C. Angelou, D. R. Reese, and G. Costa, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 483, L28 (2018)

    work page 2018

  60. [60]

    Hendriks and C

    L. Hendriks and C. Aerts, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of the Pacific131, 108001 (2019)

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    B. T. H. Tsang, D. Vartanyan, and A. Burrows, Astro- phys. J. Lett.937, L15 (2022)

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Maltsev, F

    K. Maltsev, F. R. N. Schneider, I. Mandel, B. Müller, A. Heger, F. K. Röpke, and E. Laplace, eprint arXiv:2503.23856 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Harada, S

    A. Harada, S. Nishikawa, and S. Yamada, ApJ925, 117 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Abbar, M.-R

    S. Abbar, M.-R. Wu, and Z. Xiong, Phys. Rev. D109, 043024 (2024), 2311.15656

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Richers, J

    S. Richers, J. Froustey, S. Ghosh, F. Foucart, and J. Gomez, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103019 (2024), arXiv:2409.04405 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    D. Fan, D. E. Willcox, C. DeGrendele, M. Zingale, and A. Nonaka, The Astrophysical Journal940, 134 (2022)

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    M. Li, T. M. Sprouse, B. S. Meyer, and M. R. Mumpower, Physics Letters B848, 138385 (2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    Grichener, M

    A. Grichener, M. Renzo, W. E. Kerzendorf, R. Farmer, S. E. de Mink, E. P. Bellinger, C.-k. Chan, N. Chen, E. Farag, and S. Justham, eprint arXiv:2503.00115 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Saito, I

    Y. Saito, I. Dillmann, R. Krücken, M. R. Mumpower, and R. Surman, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 52, 055201 (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    D.M.SiegelandB.D.Metzger,PhysicalReviewLetters 119, 231102 (2017)

    work page 2017

  71. [71]

    Fujibayashi, M

    S. Fujibayashi, M. Shibata, S. Wanajo, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and Y. Sekiguchi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083029 (2020)

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    Bauswein, S

    A. Bauswein, S. Goriely, and H.-T. Janka, ApJ773, 78 (2013)

    work page 2013

  73. [73]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, Y.-i. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  74. [74]

    Ott, and L

    D.Radice, F.Galeazzi, J.Lippuner, L.F.Roberts, C.D. Ott, and L. Rezzolla, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.460, 3255 (2016)

    work page 2016

  75. [75]

    Foucart, R

    F. Foucart, R. Haas, M. D. Duez, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, L. Roberts, L. E. Kidder, J. Lippuner, H. P. Pfeif- fer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D93, 044019 (2016)

    work page 2016

  76. [76]

    O. Just, M. Obergaulinger, and H.-T. Janka, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.453, 3386 (2015)

    work page 2015

  77. [77]

    W. R. Hix and B. S. Meyer, Nucl. Phys. A777, 188 (2006), arXiv:0509698 [astro-ph]

    work page 2006

  78. [78]

    C45, 030003 (2021)

    M.Wang, W.Huang, F.Kondev, G.Audi,andS.Naimi, Chinese Phys. C45, 030003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Nuclear Ground-State Masses and Deformations

    P. Möller, J. R. Nix, W. D. Myers, and W. J. Swiate- cki, Atom. Data Nucl. Data Tabl. 59, 185 (1995), arXiv:nucl-th/9308022

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  80. [80]

    A. W. Steiner, M. Hempel, and T. Fischer, ApJ774, 17 (2013)

    work page 2013

Showing first 80 references.