Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study introduces a hybrid \(q\) -calculus and artificial neural network framework for the Thomas–Fermi equation of free positive ions. Its contribution is a construction in which \(q\) -deformation combines the terminal derivative and terminal-value conditions, representing three classical boundary conditions by two constraints in the deformed problem. A boundary-compatible trial solution embeds the transformed constraints, allowing training to focus on the \(q\) -differential residual. For fixed \(q<1\) , the result is a deformed approximation with a classical limit as \(q→ 1\) . Experiments across nine ionization degrees and five seeds compared the \(q\) -ANN with a benchmark, a soft-constrained PINN, and an undeformed hard-constrained classical ANN. The \(q\) -ANN produced lower RMSE than the PINN in 42 of 45 matched runs and a lower median RMSE ( \(0.004127\) versus \(0.015044\) ), although two outlying outcomes caused mean RMSE to favor the PINN and paired tests did not establish a difference. Against the hard-constrained classical ANN, the \(q\) -ANN produced lower RMSE in 44 of 45 comparisons, indicating that the observed performance is not attributable solely to exact constraint embedding. The pointwise \(q\) -ANN was approximately \(102\) times slower than the vectorized PINN. The framework provides a new boundary-transformation strategy while retaining initialization sensitivity and computational cost as limitations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
GÜVERCİN et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: