Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 3 cited by

Efficient training of photonic quantum generative models

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-07-15 · grok-4.5

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Renormalization fixes the imaginary part of the de Sitter wavefunction at all loops from its scale dependence alone.

desk verdict Manuscript mismatch: abstract is photonic QML/MMD training; supplied full text is an unrelated de Sitter wavefunction paper, so the central claim cannot be checked. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.08793 v2 pith:4SUGYVN4 submitted 2026-03-09 quant-ph

Felix Gottlieb , Chayma Faraji , Rawad Mezher , Brian Ventura , Shane Mansfield , Alexia Salavrakos This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords deSitterwavefunctionrenormalizationcosmologicalcorrelatorsquantumanomalyall-looprelationsBunch-Daviesvacuumdilationisometry
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 shows that for shift-symmetric scalars in de Sitter space, renormalization forces a precise link between the real and imaginary parts of the cosmological wavefunction to every order in the loop expansion. At tree level the wavefunction is purely real; loops produce an imaginary piece that is completely determined by how the real part depends on the renormalization scale. The relation follows from unitarity, locality, the dilation isometry of de Sitter, and the Bunch-Davies vacuum, and it holds for light fields with soft infrared interactions. Because the imaginary part enters correlators of fields and their conjugate momenta, the same relation produces an infinite family of identities among those observables. The result turns what looks like an ultraviolet ambiguity into a universal constraint that organizes the entire perturbative expansion of the wavefunction.

What carries the argument

The operator identity Im bψ_n = tan(π/2 µ∂_µ) Re bψ_n, which converts any logarithmic dependence on the renormalization scale µ into the corresponding imaginary contribution required by unitarity and the Bunch-Davies condition.

What would settle it

An explicit two-loop (or higher) calculation of a wavefunction coefficient for a massless scalar with soft interactions that is free of infrared divergences, yet whose imaginary part fails to equal tan(π/2 µ∂_µ) acting on its real part.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The renormalized de Sitter wavefunction coefficients of massless fields obey Im bψ_n = tan(π/2 µ∂_µ) Re bψ_n to all loop orders. Equivalently, at any finite loop order L the coefficients take the universal form of a finite sum of real kinematic functions times (log(µ/H) + iπ/2)^ℓ. This imaginary part is therefore fixed solely by the renormalization-scale dependence of the real part.

Load-bearing premise

The theories must remain infrared-finite for light fields with sufficiently soft interactions so that the only source of imaginary parts is the renormalization of ultraviolet divergences.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission under review is identified as arXiv:2603.08793, whose abstract claims an efficient classical training procedure for photon-native quantum generative models based on maximum mean discrepancy (MMD), exploiting intermediate-complexity structure of quantum linear optics so that training is classically efficient while deployment corresponds to boson sampling, together with numerical results, proposed datasets, and studies of initialization, kernels, and ansätze. The full manuscript text supplied with the review package is, however, an entirely different paper (All-Loop Renormalization and the Phase of the de Sitter Wavefunction, arXiv:2603.08794), which derives an all-loop relation Im ψ̂_n = tan(π/2 μ∂_μ) Re ψ̂_n for renormalized de Sitter wavefunction coefficients of massless fields and discusses implications for correlators. None of the photonic constructions, complexity arguments, MMD training procedure, datasets, or numerical experiments promised by the abstract of 2603.08793 appear in the provided full text.

Significance. If the abstract claims of 2603.08793 were substantiated—i.e., a rigorous demonstration that MMD objectives (or gradients) for linear-optical circuits are classically poly-time while sampling remains hard, plus reproducible numerics—they would be a meaningful contribution to train-on-classical/deploy-on-quantum generative models and photonic QML. That significance cannot be assessed from the supplied manuscript, which contains no photonic generative-model content. Separately, the de Sitter paper that was actually provided would, if under review, be a theoretically interesting all-loop constraint from unitarity, locality, dilation, and Bunch-Davies; but that is not the paper named in the review request.

major comments (3)
  1. Manuscript identity mismatch: the review package labels the work as 2603.08793 (photonic quantum generative models / MMD / boson sampling) but the full text is 2603.08794 (all-loop renormalization of the de Sitter wavefunction). No section, equation, figure, or appendix of the supplied text addresses quantum linear optics, MMD training, intermediate-complexity circuits, or boson sampling. The central claim of the paper under review is therefore uncheckable.
  2. Load-bearing intermediate-complexity claim (abstract of 2603.08793): classical efficiency of MMD evaluation/gradients over linear-optical circuits while sampling remains hard is asserted but nowhere derived in the provided text. There is no complexity statement, no regime of photon number/modes, no reduction to permanent estimation or known simulable fragments, and no comparison to hardness results. Without that derivation the train-on-classical/deploy-on-quantum separation is unsupported.
  3. Missing empirical content promised by the abstract: numerical results, proposed datasets, and ablations of initialization, kernel, and ansatz choice are not present in the supplied manuscript. No tables, error bars, or training curves can be inspected.
minor comments (2)
  1. If the de Sitter manuscript (2603.08794) was the intended submission, its presentation is largely clear; residual presentation issues (e.g., equation numbering continuity across the excerpt, figure/diagram placeholders in the appendix) would be minor and secondary to the identity mismatch.
  2. The abstract of 2603.08793 should, in any resubmission, state the precise photon-number and mode regime in which classical MMD training is claimed to be efficient.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain is inspectable for the claimed photonic QLO+MMD result; supplied full text is an unrelated cosmology paper.

full rationale

The target abstract (arXiv:2603.08793) proposes an efficient classical MMD training procedure for photon-native generative models whose deployment is boson sampling, plus numerical exploration of initialization, kernels, and ansatze. That is a methods-and-numerics claim, not a first-principles prediction forced by redefining a fitted quantity. The CACHEABLE full manuscript text, however, is an entirely different paper (All-Loop Renormalization and the Phase of the de Sitter Wavefunction, arXiv:2603.08794) containing none of the linear-optical circuits, MMD objectives, complexity arguments, or training results. With no derivation equations, no complexity reduction, and no fitted-parameter-as-prediction steps present for 2603.08793, no self-definitional, fitted-input, or load-bearing self-citation circularity can be exhibited by quote. Residual risk that training success is scored by the same MMD objective used to train is ordinary generative-model practice and does not meet the bar for circularity under the stated rules. Score 0; steps empty.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review of a methods paper. Load-bearing premises are domain assumptions about intermediate complexity of linear optics, classical efficiency of MMD training estimates, and hardness of boson sampling at deployment. No free parameters or invented physical entities can be extracted from the abstract; none are fitted constants in the usual theory sense.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Quantum linear optics has intermediate-complexity structure: training-related quantities can be simulated classically efficiently while sampling generally requires quantum hardware (boson sampling).
    Stated as the enabling analogy for the proposed train-on-classical, deploy-on-quantum procedure.
  • domain assumption Maximum mean discrepancy is a suitable training objective for photon-native quantum generative models.
    Abstract bases the efficient training procedure on MMD without further justification available here.
  • domain assumption Deployment of the trained model corresponds to the boson sampling task.
    Core mapping claimed in the abstract between generative sampling and boson sampling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient training of photonic quantum generative models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4SUGYVN4

@misc{pith2026260308793,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient training of photonic quantum generative models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4SUGYVN4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.08793}
}
read the original abstract

The topic of generative learning has gained traction within the field of quantum machine learning, in particular with the advent of train-on-classical, deploy-on-quantum methods. This approach exploits the properties of intermediate-complexity circuits whose training can be simulated classically efficiently, but that generally require quantum hardware for the corresponding sampling problem. Quantum linear optics possess similar properties, which allow us to propose an efficient training procedure for photon-native quantum generative models based on the maximum mean discrepancy, where the deployment of the model corresponds to the task of boson sampling. We provide numerical results, propose datasets, and we also explore how initialization strategies, kernel and ansatz choice affect the training.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Classical simulation and model concentration in passive linear optics

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In passive linear optics, expectation-value concentration is set by misalignment of state and observable irrep purities, and known non-concentrating regimes remain largely classically tractable via irrep truncation or...

  2. Spectral Born machines: classically trainable quantum generative models for discrete data

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spectral Born machines are Fourier-phase quantum generative models over Z_d^n that train classically via graph-spectral MMD and show reduced parameters plus apparent overfitting resistance on integer data.

  3. Hybrid Quantum Neural Networks: Theory, Implementations, and Applications

    quant-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    A balanced review of hybrid quantum neural networks, concluding that quantum layers help on structured, small-scale and quantum-native problems but do not yet beat classical models on generic benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    + + + + + (1↔2) + (1↔3) # +O(λ 4) (B8) while ibC3(p1,p 2;p 3) = + + + + +

    and understood more generally as a consequence of Weyl anomaly [4] and renormalization [7]. A remarkable finding of [7] was that given any regulators compatible with unitarity, the imaginary part at one-loop is tied to the logarithmic renormalization scale dependence, and is therefore universal. This suggest deeper implications for the RG structure of cos...

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Baume, B

    F. Baume, B. Keren-Zur, R. Rattazzi, and L. Vi- tale, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 10.1007/jhep08(2014)152 (2014)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2014)152 2014

  3. [3]

    T. Liu, X. Tong, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP04, 189, arXiv:1909.01819 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 1909

  4. [4]

    Cabass, S

    G. Cabass, S. Jazayeri, E. Pajer, and D. Stefanyszyn, JHEP02, 021, arXiv:2210.02907 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Goodhew, A

    H. Goodhew, A. Thavanesan, and A. C. Wall, (2024), arXiv:2408.17406 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Thavanesan, (2025), arXiv:2501.06383 [hep-th]

    A. Thavanesan, (2025), arXiv:2501.06383 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    M. H. G. Lee, C. McCulloch, and E. Pajer, JHEP11, 038, arXiv:2305.11228 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    D. Jain, E. Pajer, and X. Tong, (2025), arXiv:2509.02696 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 83 references
  1. [9]

    N. C. Tsamis and R. P. Woodard, Nucl. Phys. B474, 235 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9602315

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. D72, 043514 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0506236. 9

    2005

  3. [11]

    Marolf and I

    D. Marolf and I. A. Morrison, Phys. Rev. D82, 105032 (2010), arXiv:1006.0035 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Krotov and A

    D. Krotov and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B849, 410 (2011), arXiv:1012.2107 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. Bros, H. Epstein, and U. Moschella, JCAP02, 003, arXiv:hep-th/0612184

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Senatore and M

    L. Senatore and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP12, 008, arXiv:0912.2734 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Marolf and I

    D. Marolf and I. A. Morrison, Phys. Rev. D84, 044040 (2011), arXiv:1010.5327 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [16]

    D. P. Jatkar, L. Leblond, and A. Rajaraman, Phys. Rev. D85, 024047 (2012), arXiv:1107.3513 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. L. Pimentel, L. Senatore, and M. Zaldarriaga, JHEP 07, 166, arXiv:1203.6651 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Green and A

    D. Green and A. Premkumar, JHEP04, 064, arXiv:2001.05974 [hep-th]

    2001 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cohen and D

    T. Cohen and D. Green, JHEP12, 041, arXiv:2007.03693 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Di Pietro, V

    L. Di Pietro, V. Gorbenko, and S. Komatsu, (2023), arXiv:2312.17195 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Heckelbacher, I

    T. Heckelbacher, I. Sachs, E. Skvortsov, and P. Vanhove, JHEP08, 139, arXiv:2204.07217 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Chowdhury and K

    C. Chowdhury and K. Singh, JHEP12, 109, arXiv:2305.18529 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Green and K

    D. Green and K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D112, 043526 (2025), arXiv:2410.11973 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Huenupi, E

    J. Huenupi, E. Hughes, G. A. Palma, and S. Sypsas, (2024), arXiv:2412.01891 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Huenupi, E

    J. Huenupi, E. Hughes, G. A. Palma, and S. Sypsas, Phys. Rev. D110, 123536 (2024), arXiv:2406.07610 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    G. A. Palma, S. Sypsas, and D. Tapia, (2025), arXiv:2507.21310 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Benincasa, G

    P. Benincasa, G. Brunello, M. K. Mandal, P. Mastro- lia, and F. Vaz˜ ao, Phys. Rev. D111, 085016 (2025), arXiv:2408.16386 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, (2025), arXiv:2504.07926 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  21. [29]

    Nowinski and I

    M. Nowinski and I. Sachs, (2025), arXiv:2507.21224 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bhowmick, D

    S. Bhowmick, D. Ghosh, and F. Ullah, JHEP10, 057, arXiv:2405.10374 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bhowmick, M

    S. Bhowmick, M. H. G. Lee, D. Ghosh, and F. Ullah, JHEP02, 116, arXiv:2503.21880 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chowdhury, A

    C. Chowdhury, A. Lipstein, J. Mei, I. Sachs, and P. Van- hove, JHEP03, 007, arXiv:2312.13803 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Chowdhury, P

    C. Chowdhury, P. Chowdhury, R. N. Moga, and K. Singh, JHEP10, 202, arXiv:2408.00074 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Premkumar, Phys

    A. Premkumar, Phys. Rev. D109, 045003 (2024), arXiv:2110.12504 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Melville and E

    S. Melville and E. Pajer, JHEP05, 249, arXiv:2103.09832 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    C´ espedes, A.-C

    S. C´ espedes, A.-C. Davis, and D.-G. Wang, JHEP04, 004, arXiv:2311.17990 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP09, 116, arXiv:2304.13295 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Qin and Z.-Z

    Z. Qin and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP01, 168, arXiv:2308.14802 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Qin, JHEP03, 051, arXiv:2411.13636 [hep-th]

    Z. Qin, JHEP03, 051, arXiv:2411.13636 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    H. Liu, Z. Qin, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP02, 101, arXiv:2407.12299 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Baumann, H

    D. Baumann, H. Goodhew, and H. Lee, JHEP07, 131, arXiv:2410.17994 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Ansari, S

    E. Ansari, S. Bhowmick, and D. Ghosh, (2025), arXiv:2512.11040 [hep-th]

    2025

  35. [43]

    G. L. Pimentel and T. Westerdijk, (2026), arXiv:2601.00952 [hep-th]

    2026 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Gr¨ afe and I

    J. Gr¨ afe and I. Sachs, (2026), arXiv:2602.09977 [hep-th]

    2026

  37. [45]

    Chowdhury, S

    C. Chowdhury, S. Jazayeri, A. Lipstein, J. Marshall, J. Mei, and I. Sachs, (2026), arXiv:2602.03841 [hep-th]

    2026

  38. [46]

    X. Chen, Y. Wang, and Z.-Z. Xianyu, JHEP08, 051, arXiv:1604.07841 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Wang, Z.-Z

    L.-T. Wang, Z.-Z. Xianyu, and Y.-M. Zhong, JHEP02, 085, arXiv:2109.14635 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Xianyu and H

    Z.-Z. Xianyu and H. Zhang, JHEP04, 103, arXiv:2211.03810 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Bodas, E

    A. Bodas, E. Broadberry, R. Sundrum, and Z. Xu, (2025), arXiv:2507.22978 [hep-ph]

    2025

  42. [50]

    Kristiano and J

    J. Kristiano and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D109, 103541 (2024), arXiv:2303.00341 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Firouzjahi and A

    H. Firouzjahi and A. Riotto, JCAP02, 021, arXiv:2304.07801 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Beneke, P

    M. Beneke, P. Hager, and A. F. Sanfilippo, JHEP04, 006, arXiv:2312.06766 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Fumagalli, JHEP05, 162, arXiv:2305.19263 [astro- ph.CO]

    J. Fumagalli, JHEP05, 162, arXiv:2305.19263 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Choudhury, S

    S. Choudhury, S. Panda, and M. Sami, JCAP11, 066, arXiv:2303.06066 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Firouzjahi, JCAP10, 006, arXiv:2303.12025 [astro- ph.CO]

    H. Firouzjahi, JCAP10, 006, arXiv:2303.12025 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Frolovsky and S

    D. Frolovsky and S. V. Ketov, Phys. Rev. D111, 083533 (2025), arXiv:2502.00628 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. D111, 103504 (2025), arXiv:2502.08707 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Fang, Z.-H

    C.-J. Fang, Z.-H. Lyu, C. Chen, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D112, 023547 (2025), arXiv:2502.09555 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Inomata, Phys

    K. Inomata, Phys. Rev. D111, 123517 (2025), arXiv:2502.12112 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Braglia and L

    M. Braglia and L. Pinol, (2025), arXiv:2504.13136 [astro- ph.CO]

    2025

  53. [61]

    Y. Ema, M. Hong, R. Jinno, and K. Mukaida, (2025), arXiv:2506.15780 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  54. [62]

    D. Wang, X. Wang, Y. Wang, and W. Yu, (2025), arXiv:2508.12856 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Maru and A

    N. Maru and A. Okawa, (2021), arXiv:2101.10634 [hep- ph]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    X. Niu, M. H. Rahat, K. Srinivasan, and W. Xue, JCAP 05, 018, arXiv:2211.14324 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Fujita, T

    T. Fujita, T. Murata, I. Obata, and M. Shiraishi, JCAP 05, 127, arXiv:2310.03551 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Reinhard, Z

    M. Reinhard, Z. Slepian, J. Hou, and A. Greco, (2024), arXiv:2412.16037 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Garcia-Saenz, Y

    S. Garcia-Saenz, Y. Lu, and S. Renaux-Petel, (2025), arXiv:2503.18516 [hep-th]

    2025

  60. [68]

    Caron-Huot and M

    S. Caron-Huot and M. Wilhelm, Journal of High Energy Physics2016, 10.1007/jhep12(2016)010 (2016)

    2016 doi

  61. [69]

    Chavda, D

    A. Chavda, D. McLoughlin, S. Mizera, and J. Staunton, (2025), arXiv:2510.25822 [hep-th]

    2025

  62. [70]

    Chavda, D

    A. Chavda, D. McLoughlin, S. Mizera, and J. Staunton, (2025), arXiv:2511.10613 [hep-th]

    2025

  63. [71]

    J. M. Maldacena, JHEP05, 013, arXiv:astro- ph/0210603

  64. [72]

    Anninos, T

    D. Anninos, T. Anous, D. Z. Freedman, and G. Konstan- tinidis, JCAP11, 048, arXiv:1406.5490 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Sleight and M

    C. Sleight and M. Taronna, Phys. Rev. D104, L081902 (2021), arXiv:2007.09993 [hep-th]. 10

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Harlow and D

    D. Harlow and D. Stanford, (2011), arXiv:1104.2621 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Bzowski, P

    A. Bzowski, P. McFadden, and K. Skenderis, (2023), arXiv:2312.17316 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    McFadden and K

    P. McFadden and K. Skenderis, Phys. Rev. D81, 021301 (2010), arXiv:0907.5542 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Kontsevich and G

    M. Kontsevich and G. Segal, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. 72, 673 (2021), arXiv:2105.10161 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Witten, (2021), arXiv:2111.06514 [hep-th]

    E. Witten, (2021), arXiv:2111.06514 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Stefanyszyn, X

    D. Stefanyszyn, X. Tong, and Y. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 221501 (2024), arXiv:2406.00099 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    S. A. Salcedo, M. H. G. Lee, S. Melville, and E. Pajer, JHEP06, 020, arXiv:2212.08009 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Agui-Salcedo and S

    S. Agui-Salcedo and S. Melville, JHEP12, 076, arXiv:2308.00680 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Goodhew, S

    H. Goodhew, S. Jazayeri, and E. Pajer, JCAP04, 021, arXiv:2009.02898 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Goodhew, S

    H. Goodhew, S. Jazayeri, M. H. G. Lee, and E. Pajer, JCAP08, 003, arXiv:2104.06587 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.