Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Probing Primordial Symmetry Breaking with Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that two distinct types of primordial symmetry breaking leave different, observable patterns in the CMB power spectra, even though both models match general relativity at background level.

desk verdict The formal perturbation equations for the Palatini/Weyl variant are worth a look, but the central A/B distinguishability claim rests on a hand-wavy approximation the authors themselves admit is not accurate. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04630 v3 pith:JZAVIHDX submitted 2019-08-13 gr-qc

Jiwon Park , Tae Hoon Lee This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords primordialsymmetrybreakingscalar-tensorgravityPalatiniformalismWeylgeometryCMBpowerspectracosmologicalperturbationtheorylensingB-modesmodified
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 tries to show that two different ways of breaking a fundamental symmetry in the early universe can be told apart by the pattern of temperature and polarization fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. Both models—a broken-symmetric scalar-tensor theory of gravity and its Palatini/Weyl-geometry counterpart—look exactly like general relativity at the background level, so ordinary cosmological history cannot distinguish them. The authors derive the perturbation equations for each and compute CMB power spectra, finding that with the same potential scale the two models disagree with each other and with general relativity. In particular, the Palatini version can raise the small-scale temperature spectrum above the general-relativity prediction, while the metric version mostly suppresses it. If correct, this gives a cosmological, observationally accessible route to probing the character of primordial symmetry breaking.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the two perturbative energy-momentum tensors (28) and (33). The first contains the matter coupling term $-\kappa\phi_A T_{\mu\nu}$, inherited from the non-minimal coupling in the scalar-tensor action; the second, coming from the Palatini/Weyl construction, contains only derivative terms, because the matter action must respect the conformal symmetry of the Weyl frame. These tensors feed the evolution equation of matter density perturbations as an external force, and the sign and size of that force decide whether the photon perturbation amplitude is damped or amplified. The numerical analysis also relies on an approximation in which the rapidly oscillating scalar field $\phi_k$ is replaced by its envelope $f(\tau)/a$, with $f(\tau)$ a double integral over the mode-dependent potential term; the authors state this approximation is qualitative rather than quantitatively exact.

What would settle it

Recompute the CMB spectra using the exact oscillating solution of equation (39) instead of the envelope approximation; if the TT excess above general relativity for $V_B = 10^3$ at $l \gtrsim 1500$ disappears, the central claim fails. A second, observational check is to measure the small-scale temperature spectrum and lensing $B$-mode polarization at high precision: finding no excess above the standard prediction would rule out the parameter range the paper highlights.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the model's own terms, the discovery is that primordial symmetry breaking leaves a measurable imprint in the perturbative sector even when it is invisible at background level. In model A (the broken-symmetric scalar-tensor theory with the standard Levi-Civita connection), the scalar perturbation contributes the additional energy-momentum tensor $\delta T^{(A)}_{\mu\nu} = \nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu\phi_A - g_{\mu\nu}\Box\phi_A - \kappa\phi_A T_{\mu\nu}$, whose last term couples directly to ordinary matter; in model B (the Palatini/Weyl version) the corresponding tensor $\delta T^{(B)}_{\mu\nu} = \nabla_\mu\nabla_\nu\phi_B - g_{\mu\nu}\Box\phi_B$ has no such matter coupling, a consequence of the conformal symmetry of the Weyl frame. Since both models share the same background equations as general relativity, any difference must surface through these perturbation terms. Numerically, model A's extra term mostly acts as friction and lowers the TT spectrum relative to general relativity except for a slight low-$l$ increase, whereas model B can produce an increase above general relativity for $l \gtrsim 1500$ at potential scale $V_B = 10^3$. The lensing contribution, most visible in the relative deviation of $B$-mode polarization, is claimed to be a particularly clear diagnostic.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical prediction rests on the assumption that the rapidly oscillating scalar field can be replaced by its smooth decay envelope and that its initial amplitude is $\sqrt{2}$; if either of those choices is wrong, the claimed spectra—and the difference between the two models—are not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Small-scale CMB temperature measurements around $l \approx 1500$ and above can in principle distinguish the two symmetry-breaking scenarios, because model A suppresses that region while model B makes it exceed the general-relativity prediction.
  • For a given potential scale, the two models disagree with each other as strongly as they disagree with general relativity, so matching data would select one type of primordial symmetry breaking.
  • Lensing of the CMB carries a model-dependent signal that is proportionally largest in $B$-mode polarization, making lensed $B$-modes a sensitive place to look even when temperature differences are small.
  • As the potential scale grows, both models reduce to the standard general-relativity power spectra, so the size of the deviation is controlled by the mass of the symmetry-breaking field.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the model B perturbation equation is source-free, its prediction is directly proportional to the assumed initial amplitude $\sqrt{2}$; varying that amplitude would rescale the high-$l$ excess, so a robust test should treat that amplitude as a free parameter.
  • The qualitative split—damping in the metric version, small-scale enhancement in the Palatini/Weyl version—is a template that other modified-gravity theories can be compared against, since most such theories shift peak positions rather than high-$l$ amplitude.
  • One testable extension is to run the same computation with the exact oscillating field solution instead of the envelope approximation; if the model B excess survives, it becomes a clean observational target.
  • The lensing signature suggests that future CMB surveys with high sensitivity to $B$-modes could set upper bounds on the symmetry-breaking scale even without full-sky temperature data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies two scalar-tensor theories of primordial symmetry breaking: model A, based on Zee's broken-symmetric gravity, and model B, a Palatini/Weyl-geometry variant. It argues that although both models reduce to GR at the background level, their linearized perturbations differ, and it uses a modified CAMB code to compute CMB TT, EE, TE, and BB power spectra. The central claim is that the two models produce different CMB spectra at the same potential scale, with model B showing a distinctive rise above GR at high multipoles and a pronounced lensing contribution to B modes, which would allow observations to distinguish the two symmetry-breaking scenarios.

Significance. If the numerical results were reliable, the paper would offer a novel and interesting connection between primordial symmetry breaking and CMB observables. The linearized perturbation framework is clearly laid out, and the structural difference between the effective energy-momentum tensors in Eqs. (28) and (33)—specifically the presence of the matter-coupling term -κφ_A T_μν in model A and its absence in model B—is a clean theoretical insight. No constants are fitted to CMB data, and the two models are not tautologically equivalent. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an approximation that the authors themselves describe as 'somewhat hand-wavy' and 'almost safe but not accutate,' and the initial amplitude of the scalar perturbation is introduced without derivation. The current manuscript therefore does not establish the claimed distinguishing signatures.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (43)] The envelope approximation φ_k(τ) ≈ f(τ)/a is not derived from the exact oscillator equation (39)-(40), and its underlying assumptions are inconsistent with the parameter regime used in the paper. The scheme assumes |h'| << 1 and |g'| proportional to |h''/h'| << 1, but for V ~ 10^3 the term 4 V M_P^2 a^2 dominates the frequency in Eq. (40), so the exact phase h' cannot be small. In the radiation era, where a''/a = 0, the WKB amplitude of u = a φ_k decays as [k^2 + 4 V M_P^2 a^2]^{-1/4}, which is a power-law envelope, whereas Eq. (43) gives exp(-∫∫(k^2 + 4 V M_P^2 a^2 - a''/a) dτ' dτ''), which decays much faster. Since the source terms in Eqs. (45) and (46) depend on φ_k and its derivatives, the computed CMB spectra are not the spectra of the model defined by Eq. (39). The text itself states that the scheme is 'not to be quantitively accurate' but intended for qualitative features; the abstract, however, makes a quantitative claim about distinct CMB power spectra. This is a load-bearing gap in the central numerical claim.
  2. [Section IV, initial conditions for φ_k] The initial condition φ_k = √2, φ'_k = 0 is not derived from any physical production mechanism. The justification given, 'Comparing coefficients in the actions of each model,' does not explain why the perturbation amplitude should take this value. Because the source terms in Eqs. (45) and (46) are linear in φ_k, all deviations from GR scale linearly with this arbitrary amplitude. A different choice of φ_k(τ_0) would rescale the A/B differences and could change whether model B rises above GR at l ≳ 1500, while leaving the potential scale V unchanged. Without a first-principles normalization, the claimed spectra cannot be used to verify the models against CMB data.
  3. [Section IV, Figs. 2-6] The numerical results are not validated against the exact solution of Eq. (39). No convergence test of the approximation (43) is reported, no comparison with exact integration for even a single k mode is shown, and no code or data are made available. Given that the paper's own conclusion calls the approximation 'almost safe but not accutate,' the plotted spectra in Figures 2-6 cannot be taken as reliable predictions. The distinguishing feature—model B's TT spectrum exceeding GR for l ≳ 1500 at V_B = 10^3—could be an artifact of the envelope approximation. The authors need to either solve the exact oscillator equation or demonstrate quantitatively that the approximation reproduces the exact solution in the relevant regime.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (48)] Equation (48) uses V_A in the expression for the model B force term; this should presumably be V_B.
  2. [Throughout] The manuscript contains numerous typographical errors, including 'not to be quantitively accurate,' 'accutate,' 'simillar,' 'Adcatama,' and 'et el.' instead of 'et al.' A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  3. [References] References [45] and [46] appear to be identical; one of them should be removed or corrected.
  4. [Figures] Figure captions are very terse and do not identify which curves correspond to which potential scale. Adding legends or explicit curve labels would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the perturbative derivation is self-contained, and the acknowledged approximation issues are correctness risks rather than circular reductions.

full rationale

The paper's perturbative equations and numerical spectra are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The two models are defined by distinct actions (Zee's broken-symmetric theory for model A and a Weyl-geometry/Palatini version for model B), and the additional energy-momentum tensors in Eqs. (28) and (33) are derived directly from those actions. The scalar-field evolution equations (29) and (34) are then combined into the common oscillator (39), with the model difference entering only through the source terms (45) and (46). No parameter is fitted to the CMB spectra: the cosmological parameters are taken from Planck 2018, and the potential scales are scanned as inputs. The initial condition phi_k = sqrt(2) is a specified input, not a fitted output, and the approximation phi_k ≈ f/a in Eq. (43) is presented as a numerical shortcut, not as a hidden restatement of the claimed result. The paper explicitly warns that the scheme is 'not to be quantitively accurate' and calls the numerical approximation 'almost safe but not accutate'; these are correctness or validation concerns, not circularity. The citations to Zee, CAMB, and Planck are external and do not form a self-citation chain that forces the conclusion. Therefore the central claim, while potentially fragile because of the uncontrolled envelope approximation, does not reduce to its own inputs or to a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central numerical prediction rests on six stated assumptions. Four are standard domain assumptions for this type of scalar-tensor cosmology, but two, the decay-envelope approximation and the initial amplitude phi_k = sqrt(2), are chosen ad hoc and are not checked against exact integration or external data.

free parameters (2)
  • Potential scale V (V_A and V_B) = Scanned over 10^2, 10^3, 10^4 in the figures
    Controls the scalar-field mass through m^2 = 4 V M_P^2. No physical derivation or prior constraint is given, and the resulting spectra are sensitive to this choice.
  • Initial amplitude of the scalar perturbation phi_k(tau0) = sqrt(2)
    Set by 'comparing coefficients in the actions' without an explicit derivation or a production mechanism. With zero initial amplitude the new signatures vanish, so the central spectra depend on this chosen value.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Brans-Dicke action with the Higgs-type potential (2) describes primordial symmetry breaking.
    Zee's model is adopted as the starting point for model A and is not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Model B uses the Weyl connection condition (8) and Riemann-frame minimal coupling of matter.
    This choice defines the conformal symmetry (11) and is responsible for the absence of the kappa phi T term in delta T^(B). Different matter couplings would change the observable signature.
  • domain assumption Linear perturbations are taken around the symmetric vacuum phi = M_P and a homogeneous GR background.
    Equations (27) through (34) require this expansion and the background equivalence of the two models to general relativity.
  • domain assumption The right-hand side of the model A field equation (29) is neglected by setting delta(rho + 3p) approximately zero.
    Used to define the common approximate equation (39) for both fields. It relies on the field being important only in the radiation era.
  • ad hoc to paper The approximation scheme (40) through (43): |h'| much less than 1 and |g'| proportional to |h''/h'| much less than 1, so phi_k is replaced by the decay envelope f(tau)/a.
    The oscillatory part of the exact equation is manually removed. The paper itself describes the scheme as hand-wavy and not quantitatively accurate, yet all spectra are computed with it.
  • ad hoc to paper The initial condition phi_k = sqrt(2) at tau0.
    Chosen so that the scalar perturbation has a nonzero starting value. No mechanism such as inflationary fluctuations is provided, and the signal amplitude scales with this choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Primordial Symmetry Breaking with Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZAVIHDX

@misc{pith2026190804630,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Primordial Symmetry Breaking with Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZAVIHDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04630}
}
read the original abstract

There have been vigorous research attempts to test various modified gravity theories by usingphysics of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). Meanwhile, symmetry breaking such as Higgsmechanism is one of the most important phenomena in physics but there have been not so muchresearches to make them contact with cosmological observations. In this article, with the CMBpower spectra we try to distinguish two different scenarios of spontaneous symmetry breaking inprimordial era of the universe. The first model is based on a broken symmetric theory of gravity,which was suggested by A. Zee in 1979. The second model is an application of Palatini formalismto the first model. Perturbation equations are computed and they show differences originated fromthe property of symmetry. Furthermore, it turns out that two models have different features ofCMB power spectra with the same potential scale. This fact enables us to verify distinct kinds ofprimordial symmetry breaking with CMB physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04630 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot for the evolution of photon energy density per [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The lensed CMB TT power spectra in the unit of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The CMB EE polarization power spectra in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The CMB TE polarization power spectra in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Brans and R

    C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Physical Review 124, 925 (1961)

    1961

  2. [2]

    G. W. Horndeski, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 10, 363 (1974)

    1974

  3. [3]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 150, 1 (1970)

    work page 1970

  4. [4]

    Englert and R

    F. Englert and R. Brout, Physical Review Letters 13, 321 (1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    G. S. Guralnik, C. R. Hagen, and T. W. B. Kibble, Phys- ical Review Letters 13, 585 (1964)

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    P. W. Higgs, Physical Review Letters 13, 508 (1964)

    work page 1964

  7. [7]

    Mohseni Sadjadi, M

    See, for example: H. Mohseni Sadjadi, M. Honardoost, and H. Sepangi, Physics of the Dark Universe 14, 40 (2016); H. Mohseni Sadjadi and V. Anari, Physical Re- view D 95, (2017); G. Tasinato, Journal of High Energy Physics 2014: 4 (2014)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Zee, Physical Review Letters 42, 417 (1979)

    A. Zee, Physical Review Letters 42, 417 (1979)

    work page 1979

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Spokoiny, Physics Letters B 147, 39 (1984)

    B. Spokoiny, Physics Letters B 147, 39 (1984)

    1984

  2. [10]

    Fleming, Physical Review D 21, 1690 (1980)

    H. Fleming, Physical Review D 21, 1690 (1980)

    1980

  3. [11]

    Pollock, Nuclear Physics B 277, 513 (1986)

    M. Pollock, Nuclear Physics B 277, 513 (1986)

    1986

  4. [12]

    For detail information on Weyl geometry, see: T. S. Almeida, M. L. Pucheu, C. Romero, and J. B. Formiga, Physical Review D 89, (2014). For its application, see, for example: D. M. Ghilencea, Journal of High Energy Physics 2019: 49 (2019); D. M. Ghilencea and H. M. Lee, Physica...

    2014

  5. [13]

    See, for example: S. Fay, R. Tavakol, and S. Tsujikawa, Physical Review D 75, (2007); T. P. Sotiriou, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23, 1253 (2006)

    2007

  6. [14]

    G. F. R. Ellis and M. Bruni, Physical Review D 40, 1804 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    S. W. Hawking, The Astrophysical Journal 145, 544 (1966)

    1966

  8. [16]

    D. H. Lyth and M. Mukherjee, Physical Review D 38, 485 (1988)

    1988

  9. [17]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor, and A. Lasenby, The Astrophysi- cal Journal 538, 473 (2000). Recent version can be down- loaded from http://camb.info/. In this paper we used the CAMB version 1.1.0

    2000

  10. [18]

    Ellis, R

    G. Ellis, R. Maartens, and M. A. H. MacCallum, Rel- ativistic Cosmology (Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2012)

    2012

  11. [19]

    Weyl, Sitzungesber Deutsch

    For original discussions given by Weyl, see: H. Weyl, Sitzungesber Deutsch. Akad. Wiss. Berli 465 (1918); H. Weyl, Ann. d. Physik (4) 59, (1919) 101; H. Weyl, Gï¿œtt. Nachr. (1921) 99; H. Weyl, Raum, Zeit, Materie, Springer, Berlin, (1919-1923); H. Weyl, Space, Time, Matter (D...

    1918

  12. [20]

    For the detailed information on this issue, see: C

    Notice that the comoving time can be different in each model but this fact has no effect in our computation. For the detailed information on this issue, see: C. Romero, J. B. Fonseca-Neto, and M. L. Pucheu, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 29, 155015 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    The code slows approximately∼ 104 times or more when the deviation of the multipoleCl is less than the order of ∼ 10−3 under the standard 8-core personal computer 11 when V ? 103

  14. [22]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration) (2018), arXiv:1807.06209

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck Collaboration), Astronomy & Astrophysics 594, A14 (2016); E. Bellini et al. Physical Review D 97, (2018)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Khoury, B

    J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Physical Review D 64, (2001); J. Khoury, B. A. Ovrut, P. J. Steinhardt, and N. Turok, Physical Review D 66, (2002); P. J. Steinhardt and N. Turok, Physical Review D 65, (2002)

    2001

  17. [25]

    Wu, L.-E

    F.-Q. Wu, L.-E. Qiang, X. Wang, and X. Chen, Physical Review D 82, (2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    For example, see: D. H. Weinberg, AIP Conference Pro- ceedings (2003); M. Viel, M. G. Haehnelt, and A. Lewis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Let- ters 370, (2006)

    2003

  19. [27]

    T.M.T.M. C. Abbott et al. (DES Collaboration), Phys- ical Review Letters 122, (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Ahumada et al

    R. Ahumada et al. (SDSS-IV Collaboration) (2019), arXiv:1912.02905

    2019

  21. [29]

    Louis et el., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017, 031 (2017)

    T. Louis et el., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017, 031 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    B. A. Benson et el., Proceedings Volume 9153, Millime- ter, Submillimeter, and Far-Infrared Detectors and In- strumentation for Astronomy VII; 91531P (2014)

    2014

  23. [31]

    Ade et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 056 (2019)

    P. Ade et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 056 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    K. N. Abazajian et el. (CMB-S4 Collaboration) (2016), arXiv:1610.02743

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Barnaveli, S

    A. Barnaveli, S. Lucat, and T. Prokopec, Journal of Cos- mology and Astroparticle Physics 2019, 022 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Baccigalupi, A

    C. Baccigalupi, A. Balbi, S. Matarrese, F. Perrotta, and N. Vittorio, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supple- ments 124, 68 (2003)

    2003

  27. [35]

    Bellini, A

    E. Bellini, A. J. Cuesta, R. Jimenez, and L. Verde, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016, 053 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Bertschinger and P

    E. Bertschinger and P. Zukin, Physical Review D 78, (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Bisabr, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 45, 509 (2006)

    Y. Bisabr, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 45, 509 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    Brax and A.-C

    P. Brax and A.-C. Davis, Physical Review D 85, (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Bucher, K

    M. Bucher, K. Moodley, and N. Turok, Physical Review D 62, (2000)

    2000

  32. [40]

    Ellis, D

    G. Ellis, D. R. Matravers, and R. Treciokas, General Rel- ativity and Gravitation 15, 931 (1983)

    1983

  33. [41]

    Ellis, D

    G. Ellis, D. Matravers, and R. Treciokas, Annals of Physics 150, 455 (1983)

    1983

  34. [42]

    Fertￜ, D

    A. Fertￜ, D. Kirk, A. R. Liddle, and J. Zuntz, Physical Review D 99, (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Freitas and S

    R. Freitas and S. Gonï¿œalves, Physics Letters B 710, 504 (2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Hu and M

    W. Hu and M. White, Physical Review D 56, 596 (1997)

    1997

  37. [46]

    Ma and E

    C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, The Astrophysical Journal 455, 7 (1995)

    1995

  38. [47]

    Miritzis, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 8, 131 (2005)

    J. Miritzis, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 8, 131 (2005). (2016)

    2005

  39. [48]

    M. L. Pucheu, F. A. P. A. Junior, A. B. Barreto, and C. Romero, Physical Review D 94, (2016)

    2016

  40. [49]

    M. L. Pucheu, C. Romero, M. Bellini, and J. E. M. Aguilar, Physical Review D 94, (2016)

    2016

  41. [50]

    S. D. M. White, G. Efstathiou, and C. S. Frenk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 262, 1023 (1993)

    1993

  42. [51]

    D. K. Wise, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 360, 012017 (2012)

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.