{"id":"cc7074a4-2d1e-4522-8012-20d803833668","arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9205208","paper_version":1,"verdict":"CONDITIONAL","confidence":"MODERATE","novelty_score":7.0,"correctness_risk":"medium","formal_verification":"none","parameter_count":0,"one_line_summary":"Galactic halos of a ~10^-23 eV boson are Bose-Einstein condensates obeying a nonlinear Schrödinger equation, which yields a rho ~ r^-1.6 profile and ripple fine structure in rotation curves.","lead":"A 1992 proposal that dark matter is an ultra-light boson whose galactic halos behave as a single quantum wave, predicting a shallow density profile and wavy ripples in galaxy rotation curves. It is an early entry in what later became the wave or fuzzy dark matter program, and its central number, the particle mass, is fitted to one galaxy.","discovery_kind":"new_application","skeptic_critique":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"The ripples and the r^-1.6 profile depend entirely on the halo occupying one highly excited eigenstate; §2 justifies this only by asserting 'no dissipation mechanism,' with no stability or formation analysis.","rationale":"The paper's structural idea — an ultra-light boson halo as a macroscopic wavefunction obeying a self-gravitating NLS — is genuine and anticipates modern fuzzy/wave dark matter. The scaling symmetry that removes the M0 ambiguity is a clean technical result, and the v_rot λ_ripple relation is essentially the de Broglie relation, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The reader correctly identifies the single-excited-state assumption as the weakest link. I agree and would sharpen it: the paper never checks whether the n=5,6 stationary solutions are dynamically stable, and 'no dissipation' is not a sufficient argument for a galactic halo, where phase mixing and dynamical friction are effective dissipation and no formation mechanism is modeled. The data comparison (one selected galaxy, m fitted to the ripple wavelength, other galaxies only 'roughly satisfied') is a real evidentiary weakness, but the paper itself concedes the data are too crude; that is a limitation the authors state, not a new finding. The load-bearing gap is therefore the unexamined stability/formation of the excited state. This does not change the reader's CONDITIONAL verdict; it reinforces it. A stability analysis is the concrete check that would settle whether the concern lands.","tokens_in":7404,"tokens_out":7012,"duration_ms":98643,"concrete_test":"Perform a Bogoliubov–de Gennes linear stability analysis of the n=5 and n=6 stationary solutions of Eq. (4): write u → u + δu(r)e^{iωt}, linearize, and solve the resulting eigenvalue problem for ω. If any mode has Im(ω) > 0, the single-excited-state picture is dynamically unstable and the ripple prediction is not robust. As a cross-check, evolve Eq. (2) in time from a slightly perturbed n=5 state and see whether it decays toward the ground state or fragments into a mixture; if it does, the r^-1.6 profile and ripples are transient artifacts rather than equilibrium predictions.","verdict_should_be":"UNCHANGED","load_bearing_attack":"The paper's distinctive outputs — the r^-1.56 profile (n=6) and the rotation-curve ripples (n=5) — exist only if the halo is a single highly excited stationary solution of Eq. (4). Section 2 selects this branch because 'there is no way for the system to lose its energy to relax to its ground state, since there is no dissipation mechanism.' That assertion carries the weight but is not sufficient. First, excited states of a self-gravitating nonlinear Schrödinger equation need not be dynamically stable even without explicit dissipation; a Bogoliubov/linear-stability analysis is never performed. Second, gravitational phase mixing, dynamical friction, and mergers act as effective dissipation for a coarse-grained wavefunction, so 'no dissipation' is not obviously true for a galactic halo. Third, no formation mechanism is given that would select n=5 or n=6 rather than a mixture; the only stated constraint on n is the Ω bound (n ≤ 7). If the state is unstable or the halo is a mixture, both the profile exponent and the ripple amplitude/wavelength change, and the central claim loses its distinctive content. The authors acknowledge the choice of excited state but not its stability.","agreement_with_reader":"agree"},"referee_report":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","summary":"The manuscript proposes that an ultra-light pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson (m ~ 10^-23 eV) produced in a late-time cosmological phase transition is the galactic dark matter, and that because its Compton wavelength greatly exceeds the interparticle spacing the halo is a single macroscopic Bose condensate governed by a nonlinear Schrödinger equation (Eq. 2). The stationary radial equation (Eq. 4) is solved numerically for excited states with n = 5-6 nodes, yielding a density profile rho ~ r^-1.56 and oscillatory ripples in the rotation curve. The author argues that a scaling symmetry of Eq. (2) removes the M0 normalization ambiguity, fits the particle mass and the total mass of NGC 2998 from that galaxy's ripple wavelength and rotation velocity (Eqs. 10-11), and predicts that v_rot times lambda_ripple is approximately galaxy-independent (Eq. 6). The paper compares the predicted rotation curve with published data, chiefly for NGC 2998.","tokens_in":7563,"tokens_out":7305,"duration_ms":87436,"significance":"If the central picture holds, this is an early and distinctive proposal in what would later be called ultra-light or fuzzy dark matter: the halo is a wave, not a particle collection, and the density profile and rotation-curve fine structure follow from wave mechanics with essentially one input, the boson mass. The scaling-symmetry argument that makes the physical mass M independent of the arbitrary normalization M0 is clean and worth stating. The numerical solution of Eq. (4) is a genuine computation, and the paper offers a falsifiable, quantitative prediction (v_rot times lambda_ripple approximately constant across galaxies) rather than a purely descriptive fit. Those are real strengths and should be weighed in the assessment.","major_comments":[{"comment":"The paper's two distinctive outputs, the rho ~ r^-1.56 profile (quoted for n = 6) and the rotation-curve ripples (fitted with n = 5), exist only if the halo occupies a single highly excited stationary solution of Eq. (4). Section 2 justifies this with the sentence 'there is no way for the system to lose its energy to relax to its ground state, since there is no dissipation mechanism.' That assertion is load-bearing and is not supported. Excited states of a self-gravitating nonlinear Schrödinger equation need not be dynamically stable even in the absence of explicit dissipation, and no linear-stability or Bogoliubov analysis is performed. Gravitational phase mixing, dynamical friction and mergers act as effective dissipation for a coarse-grained wavefunction, so the premise that there is no dissipation mechanism is not obviously true for a galactic halo. No formation mechanism is offered that would select n = 5 or n = 6 rather than a mixture of states; the only stated constraint on n is the Omega bound. The author should either supply a stability/formation argument or state explicitly that the single-eigenstate branch is an assumption whose consequences are being explored, and discuss how the profile exponent and ripple amplitude change for a mixture.","section":"§2, single-eigenstate assumption","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The particle mass m = 3.3 x 10^-23 eV and the mass scale M0 = 0.69 x 10^12 M_sun are fixed by matching NGC 2998's second-ripple wavelength and rotation velocity (Eqs. 10-11). Given that m is fixed, the relation v_rot times lambda_ripple approximately constant (Eq. 6) is a genuine conditional prediction for other galaxies, so the concern that prediction (3) is circular is only partly warranted. The empirical gap is that the paper does not actually test it: it states that 'for other galaxies, by similar analysis the prediction of eq. (8) is roughly satisfied' without showing a single additional fit, even though it identifies about five galaxies (NGC 2998, NGC 1357, NGC 4594, NGC 1620, NGC 801) with small enough error bars to show ripples. A table giving, for each of those galaxies, the measured ripple wavelength, the rotation velocity, and the inferred m and M from Eqs. (14)-(15) would convert prediction (3) from an assertion into a test. As written, the cross-galaxy claim is the weakest-supported of the three headline predictions.","section":"§3, Eqs. (10)-(15) and prediction (3)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The abstract advertises the mass profile rho ~ r^-1.6, which §2 states is the numerical result for n = 6, while the data comparison of §3 adopts n = 5 as 'the minimal choice' and fits NGC 2998 with it. The paper never states which node number describes the physical halo, nor how the profile exponent for n = 5 compares with the quoted r^-1.56. Since the exponent and the ripple spacing are the paper's two quantitative handles on the data, the reader needs the n = 5 profile exponent stated alongside the n = 6 value, and a sentence explaining why the abstract quotes the exponent of a state that is not the one used in the fit.","section":"Abstract and §2-§3, n = 5 versus n = 6","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The step from the classical energy in Eq. (1) to the nonlinear term in Eq. (2) is not shown, and the sign and normalization deserve an explicit derivation. As printed, the double integral in Eq. (2) evaluates for rho proportional to r^-1.56 to a positive, increasing function of r, whereas the gravitational potential of a bound spherical halo is negative; the existence of the bound states that the paper exhibits depends on the sign convention actually used in the code. Please give the one or two lines connecting Eq. (1) to Eq. (2), state the convention for the self-consistent potential, and confirm that the numerical solutions satisfy the virial relation v^2 = GM/r used later to justify the non-relativistic treatment.","section":"Eqs. (1)-(2), potential term","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"minor_comments":[{"comment":"The sentence 'The relation (5) is just a corollary of this rather interesting property' appears to refer to Eq. (8), not to the WKB expression in Eq. (5); please correct the cross-reference.","section":"§2, after Eq. (8)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The figures are referenced but no captions or axis labels are supplied in the text; each panel should carry a caption stating what is plotted, in what units, and for which node number n.","section":"Figures 1-3","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The typesetting of Eq. (7) is garbled (the radical symbols are broken); please re-set it so that f(r-hat) is legible.","section":"Eq. (7)","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The text says 'Among 63 galaxies listed in [10]' in §3 but 'Among 62 rotation curve data of Rubin et.al.' in the Conclusion; please reconcile the count.","section":"§3 versus §4","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"'Plumber's potential' should read 'Plummer's potential', and reference [3] should read 'Lynden-Bell' rather than 'Linden-Bell'.","section":"§3, visible matter","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The statement that 'for n greater than 4, the rotation curve resembles the observed ones' should be quantified, for example by giving the profile exponent and the ripple contrast for n = 5, 6 and 7, so the reader can see how weakly the results depend on n.","section":"§2, node-number discussion","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The argument that n larger than 7 gives a halo mass above 10^13 M_sun and hence violates the Omega bias is presented as a constraint on n, but the total mass is itself fixed by the fit normalization through the scaling symmetry; please clarify whether this is an independent constraint or a restatement of the normalization.","section":"§3, Omega bound","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null},{"comment":"The phrase 'the last wave is almost as long as the sum of all the others' is unclear; please state what is being summed and over what range.","section":"§2, WKB discussion","authors_acknowledge":null,"authors_acknowledge_p":null}],"recommendation":"major_revision","confidential_remarks":"The central idea is novel and the numerical solution of the nonlinear Schrödinger equation is real work; the scaling-symmetry observation is a genuine contribution. The manuscript is, however, thin on the two points a referee must press: why the halo is in a single highly excited eigenstate, and whether the cross-galaxy prediction actually holds beyond NGC 2998. Both are addressable within the paper's scope, and I would encourage the author to address them rather than shorten the paper."},"author_rebuttal":null,"desk_editor":{"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","letter":"This is the paper that treats a galactic halo as one macroscopic wavefunction of an ultra-light boson, and that move is the reason to read it. The nonlinear Schrödinger equation in Eq. 2, the scaling symmetry that removes the M0 ambiguity, and the observation that the r^-1.56 profile and the rotation-curve ripples fall out of the equation rather than being fitted — that is genuine structural content, and it is the ancestor of what people now call fuzzy or wave dark matter. The scaling argument in particular is clean and he actually proves it, so the claim that physical masses are independent of the arbitrary normalization is not hand-waving. Credit where due: the r^-1.6 slope and the ripples are outputs, not inputs, and the v_rot times lambda_ripple relation is a real falsifiable number with no free function in it. That is more than most dark-matter profile papers of the period offer. The soft spots are in the confrontation with data, and they are not small. The halo is put in a highly excited eigenstate — n=5 for the fit, n=6 for the quoted profile — justified only by the sentence that there is no dissipation mechanism. No stability analysis, no formation channel, and mergers and dynamical friction are exactly the kind of effective dissipation that could relax the state or make it a mixture. The stress-test note lands here; the paper acknowledges the choice of excited state and the Omega bound n<=7, but not its stability, and that assumption carries the distinctive predictions. Second, the fit rests on NGC2998, picked from 63 curves as the one where ripples are visible; m and M0 come from that single galaxy, and the other galaxies are called 'roughly satisfied' with no numbers and no error bars. So the v_rot-lambda prediction is never actually tested out of sample — it is the relation used to fix m. He is honest about the fine-tuning, which counts for something. The WKB justification is loose but flagged in footnote 12, so I would call that minor. Read it as a model proposal with a real equation behind it, not as evidence. Worth a serious referee and worth citing as the origin of the wave-DM halo picture; do not trust the numbers.","headline":"The first real treatment of a galactic halo as a single ultra-light-boson wavefunction — the structural idea holds up, the 1992 data case does not.","tokens_in":8263,"tokens_out":1398,"would_cite":true,"duration_ms":17384,"reading_group":"maybe","serious_thinker":"yes","would_accept_peer_review":true},"pith_extraction":{"msc":[],"pacs":["95.35.+d","98.62.Gq"],"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","headline":"Sin argues that an ultra-light dark-matter boson turns a galactic halo into one large quantum wave, whose excited states reproduce a slightly rising rotation curve with ripples.","keywords":["ultra-light dark matter","Bose-Einstein condensate halo","nonlinear Schrödinger equation","galactic rotation curves","late-time cosmological phase transition","Nambu-Goldstone boson","ripple fine structure","scaling symmetry"],"falsifier":"Precise rotation curves for several galaxies with small error bars: if the ripples are absent, or if their wavelength does not scale inversely with rotation velocity so that $v_{rot} lambda_{ripple}$ varies widely from galaxy to galaxy, the central prediction fails. Sin notes that among the 63 Rubin et al. curves only about five show ripples at all, and only NGC 2998 shows all the predicted features.","tokens_in":8664,"feed_emoji":"🌌","tokens_out":2813,"duration_ms":31157,"temperature":0.7,"pith_summary":"Sin takes seriously the ultra-light pseudo Nambu-Goldstone boson that late-time cosmological phase transition models produce, and asks what a galactic halo made of such a particle would look like. Because the particle's Compton wavelength (tens of parsecs) is vastly larger than the inter-particle spacing, the halo cannot be treated as a gas of points; it is better described as a single, highly occupied wavefunction, a Bose liquid, obeying a nonlinear Schrödinger equation whose potential is the gravity of the wavefunction itself. Solving that equation for excited stationary states yields three checkable statements: a dark-matter density profile $rho propto r^{-1.56}$, ripple-like fine structure superimposed on the rotation curve, and the product of rotation velocity and ripple wavelength being roughly the same in every galaxy, which is a restatement of the uncertainty principle. The appeal is economy: the shape of a halo and the wiggles in its rotation curve follow from wave mechanics with essentially one free parameter, the boson mass, which Sin fixes at about $3.3 imes 10^{-23}$ eV by fitting the rotation curve of NGC 2998.","feed_headline":"Ultralight dark matter halos should ripple like a quantum wave","feed_subtitle":"If a halo is one large wavefunction, its rotation curve ripples, and velocity times ripple wavelength stays the same across galaxies.","key_machinery":"The carrier is the gravitational nonlinear Schrödinger equation for a condensate wavefunction, together with a scaling symmetry that makes the predictions independent of the arbitrary mass normalization $M_0$. The scaling is: if $psi(r, epsilon)$ solves the equation, so does $lambda^2 psi(lambda r, lambda^2 epsilon)$. That symmetry is what allows Sin to choose a convenient normalization for numerical work and still quote physical masses, and it is the formal content behind the claim that $v_{rot} lambda_{ripple}$ is fixed: the same scaling that rescales the wavefunction rescales the radius and the eigenvalue together, leaving $m$ and the total mass invariant. A WKB reading of the resulting linear-in-potential problem then explains qualitatively why the envelope is nearly flat but slowly rising and why a ripple must be present at all.","core_discovery":"The paper's claim is that if dark matter is an ultra-light boson, galactic halos are macroscopic condensates rather than particle collections, and their structure is the structure of a nonlinear Schrödinger eigenstate. Sin writes down $i hbar partial_t psi = -frac{hbar^2}{2m} Delta psi + G m int dr' r'^{-2} int dr'' 4pi r''^2 (M_0 |psi|^2 + rho_{vis}) psi$, solves it numerically for spherically symmetric stationary states, and finds that for sufficiently excited states (node number $n$ around 5 to 6) the resulting density falls as $r^{-1.56}$, giving a rotation curve that is flat but slowly rising, closer to the data than the isothermal $r^{-2}$ profile or the infall $r^{-2.25}$ profile. The wave nature also forces oscillations: the semi-classical form $u sim p_r^{-1/2} cos(int p_r dr - Cpi/4)$ shows that the amplitude and phase of the radial wave modulate the enclosed mass, so the rotation velocity ripples. Because the ripple is a quantum interference feature, its wavelength scales inversely with the rotation velocity, so $v_{rot} lambda_{ripple}$ should be nearly galaxy-independent. Fitting the second ripple of NGC 2998 gives $7 r_0 = 8$ kpc and $0.32 v_0 = 204$ km/s, hence $m = 3.3 imes 10^{-23}$ eV, a total galaxy mass of $5.9 imes 10^{12} M_odot$, and a central dark-matter density of $1.08 imes 10^{-22}$ g/cm$^3$.","pith_inferences":["The prediction is unusually clean for a dark-matter model because it is a shape prediction, not just an abundance: a survey that measured ripple wavelengths in a handful of galaxies could test the $v_{rot} lambda$ relation without any mass modelling.","If the picture is right, the same wave mechanics should leave a signature in the inner parts of halos where the visible bulge dominates, so the ripple phase near the centre is a second, independent handle on the boson mass.","The framework sits close to what later became known as fuzzy or wave dark matter, and the specific number quoted here, a few times $10^{-23}$ eV, is the same range that later work on dwarf-galaxy cores and large-scale structure found interesting.","A natural extension the paper does not attempt is to ask what happens when a halo is a mixture of two eigenstates rather than one; the beat between them would produce a different, possibly time-varying, ripple pattern."],"forward_implications":["A halo's dark-matter density profile is predicted to fall as $r^{-1.56}$, slightly shallower than the isothermal $r^{-2}$, which matches the observed tendency of rotation curves to keep rising rather than flatten exactly.","Rotation curves should contain ripple-like fine structure whose wavelength shortens in galaxies with larger rotation velocity, with the product $v_{rot} lambda_{ripple}$ roughly universal.","A single rotation curve with measurable ripples yields both the dark-matter particle mass and the total mass of that galaxy, so galaxies become weighing devices for the dark sector.","The same scaling symmetry makes the central density and the total mass independent of the arbitrary normalization used in the numerical integration, so the fit has one physical knob rather than several.","Because the total halo mass grows with the node number, requiring $Omega$ not to exceed unity bounds the excitation, which is why Sin takes $n=5$ rather than a higher state."],"supporting_citations":[{"why":"Supplies the late-time cosmological phase transition scenario whose ultra-light Nambu-Goldstone boson this paper adopts as the dark-matter candidate.","marker":"[1]"},{"why":"Provides the prior argument that such an ultra-light particle can be a viable dark-matter candidate, which the whole construction rests on.","marker":"[2]"},{"why":"The Rubin et al. rotation-curve compilation (63 galaxies) is the observational dataset against which the predicted curves and the ripple claim are compared.","marker":"[10]"},{"why":"Landau and Lifshitz on the condensate wavefunction is the basis for treating the halo as a single macroscopic wavefunction rather than a particle distribution.","marker":"[11]"},{"why":"The isothermal-sphere mass profile $rho propto r^{-2}$ is the baseline that the predicted $r^{-1.56}$ profile is meant to improve on.","marker":"[3]"},{"why":"The spherical infall halo model, with its $rho propto r^{-2.25}$ profile, is the second baseline the paper argues against.","marker":"[9]"},{"why":"Justifies applying WKB reasoning to the numerically generated potential, which is how the paper explains the flat-but-rising envelope and the existence of ripples.","marker":"[12]"}],"fun_headline_variants":["Ultralight boson halos ripple, and the ripple wavelength scales as 1/v","A halo-sized wavefunction gives r^-1.56 density and a rippled rotation curve","One ripple in NGC 2998 sets the boson mass at 3.3e-23 eV","Excited nonlinear Schrodinger states near node 5 to 6 fit flat rotation curves"],"cache_read_input_tokens":0,"weakest_assumption_plain":"The halo is assumed to sit in a single highly excited stationary state, chosen by hand ($n=5$ for the data fit, $n=6$ for the quoted $r^{-1.56}$ profile), on the grounds that there is no dissipation to let it relax to the ground state; gravitational relaxation, dynamical friction and mergers are not modelled.","fun_headline_variants_meta":{"raw":{"variants":["Ultralight boson halos ripple, and the ripple wavelength scales as 1/v","A halo-sized wavefunction gives r^-1.56 density and a rippled rotation curve","One ripple in NGC 2998 sets the boson mass at 3.3e-23 eV","Excited nonlinear Schrodinger states near node 5 to 6 fit flat rotation curves"]},"model":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash","effort":"low","attempts":1,"cost_usd":0.0,"raw_usage":{"total_tokens":1528,"prompt_tokens":1004,"completion_tokens":524,"prompt_tokens_details":null,"completion_tokens_details":{"reasoning_tokens":438}},"tokens_in":1004,"tokens_out":524,"duration_ms":5813,"image_pages":[],"temperature":1.0,"reasoning_budget":50,"reasoning_tokens":438,"transport_provider":"selfhosted","cache_read_input_tokens":0,"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"cache_creation_input_tokens":0},"created_at":"2026-10-29T19:53:56.271762+00:00","model_set":{"reader":"selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash"},"falsifier":"Precise rotation curves for several galaxies with small error bars: if the ripples are absent, or if their wavelength does not scale inversely with rotation velocity so that $v_{rot} lambda_{ripple}$ varies widely from galaxy to galaxy, the central prediction fails. Sin notes that among the 63 Rubin et al. curves only about five show ripples at all, and only NGC 2998 shows all the predicted features.","supporting_citations":[{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Supplies the late-time cosmological phase transition scenario whose ultra-light Nambu-Goldstone boson this paper adopts as the dark-matter candidate."},{"cited_title":"The classical energy of a particle moving inside a potential generated by other particles is E = 12mv2 + ∫ r0 dr′GmM (r′)r′2 , (1) whereM (r) = ∫ r 0 dr′4πr′2ρ(r′)","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Provides the prior argument that such an ultra-light particle can be a viable dark-matter candidate, which the whole construction rests on."},{"cited_title":"So neither the thermal distribution nor the infall model is completely satisfactory","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The Rubin et al. rotation-curve compilation (63 galaxies) is the observational dataset against which the predicted curves and the ripple claim are compared."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Landau and Lifshitz on the condensate wavefunction is the basis for treating the halo as a single macroscopic wavefunction rather than a particle distribution."},{"cited_title":"First we have to include the visible matter’s effect","cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The isothermal-sphere mass profile $rho propto r^{-2}$ is the baseline that the predicted $r^{-1.56}$ profile is meant to improve on."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"The spherical infall halo model, with its $rho propto r^{-2.25}$ profile, is the second baseline the paper argues against."},{"cited_title":null,"cited_arxiv_id":null,"evidence_quote":"Justifies applying WKB reasoning to the numerically generated potential, which is how the paper explains the flat-but-rising envelope and the existence of ripples."}],"review_version":1}