Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 50 references

TheUse of Conditional Variational Autoencoders in Generating Stellar Spectra

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The abstract claims a conditional variational autoencoder trained on SYNSPEC grid spectra can synthesize stellar spectra in real time as a drop-in replacement for radiative transfer; the supplied body text is a different manuscript.

desk verdict The submission is two different papers glued together: the abstract promises a CVAE for stellar spectra, the body is an unrelated QFT paper, so no claim in the abstract is checkable and the manuscript should be desk-rejected. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17059 v1 pith:MDH6NNRT submitted 2025-08-23 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IMphysics.comp-phphysics.space-ph

Marwan Gebran , Ian Bentley This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.IMphysics.comp-phphysics.space-ph
keywords conditionalvariationalautoencoderstellarspectraradiativetransfersurrogateSYNSPECparameterinferencegenerativemodelspectralsynthesisresidualvalidation
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

The abstract claims that a conditional variational autoencoder (CVAE) trained on a grid of SYNSPEC spectra can synthesize optical stellar spectra in 4450--5400 Å for $4000\le T_{\mathrm{eff}}\le 11{,}000$ K, $2.0\le\log g\le5.0$, $-1.5\le[M/H]\le+1.5$, $v\sin i\le300$ km/s, $0\le\xi_t\le4$ km/s, and resolving powers below 115,000, roughly two orders of magnitude faster than line-by-line radiative transfer. The abstract further reports a median absolute residual below $1.8\times10^{-3}$ flux units on $10^4$ unseen test spectra, with no wavelength-dependent bias and no marginal trends in stellar parameters. If those numbers hold, the network would be a drop-in physics-aware surrogate for radiative transfer codes, making real-time forward modeling in stellar parameter inference possible. The full text supplied with this submission, however, is a different manuscript, on particle creation from entanglement entropy, and contains no CVAE description, training details, grid characterization, or validation. The claims therefore stand only on the abstract.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conditional variational autoencoder, a neural network whose encoder compresses a spectrum into a latent distribution and whose decoder reconstructs a spectrum conditioned on stellar parameters and resolution; the argument's work is done by the trained latent space interpolating between grid points of SYNSPEC spectra. Because the body supplies no architecture, loss function, grid density, or training details, the machinery exists only at the level of the abstract in this submission.

What would settle it

Evaluate the trained network at a held-out point inside the stated range, say $T_{\mathrm{eff}}=7500$ K, $\log g=3.5$, $[M/H]=+0.3$, $v\sin i=150$ km/s, $\xi_t=2$ km/s, at a resolving power of $R=80{,}000$, and compare against a fresh line-by-line SYNSPEC calculation; if the median absolute residual exceeds $1.8\times10^{-3}$ flux units or shows a trend with wavelength, the surrogate claim fails. A simpler check is to open the submitted body and look for the CVAE training and validation sections; the supplied text contains none.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, on the abstract's own terms, is that a generative model can internalize the mapping from stellar parameters and instrumental resolution to a spectrum well enough to replace line-by-line radiative transfer: a median absolute residual below $1.8\times10^{-3}$ flux units, a residual error map with $\langle|\Delta F|\rangle<2\times10^{-3}$ everywhere in the parameter plane, and no wavelength or parameter trends. The discovery, if true, is that interpolation across a precomputed SYNSPEC grid, rather than recomputation of opacities and radiative transfer, is sufficient for accurate spectral synthesis across a wide slice of stellar parameter space. That discovery is not evidenced in the submitted body, which is an unrelated quantum-field-theory paper; the network architecture, training set, and validation procedure are not described there.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the finite grid of SYNSPEC spectra used for training represents the whole stated parameter space densely enough that the autoencoder's interpolation is accurate everywhere in that space, including at resolutions below 115,000 and at parameter boundaries.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the residual claims hold, spectral fitting can be done in real time because the surrogate avoids repeated line-by-line opacity and radiative-transfer calculations.
  • A single trained network could replace repeated SYNSPEC calls across the stated parameter ranges, enabling grid-free Bayesian inference of stellar parameters.
  • The absence of wavelength-dependent bias would mean the surrogate is usable for spectrophotometric analyses, not just line positions or equivalent widths.
  • The same conditioning scheme could extend to other wavelength windows or higher resolutions only after retraining on an appropriate grid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A neural surrogate with residuals at the claimed level would make it practical to embed synthetic spectra directly into Markov-chain Monte Carlo parameter searches, where radiative-transfer calls are currently the bottleneck.
  • The flatness of the reported residual map across $λ$ and stellar parameters suggests interpolation error is dominated by latent capacity rather than local physics; probing the grid boundaries, such as $ξ_t=0$ at high $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ or $v\sin i=300$ km/s, would test where that flatness breaks.
  • If the surrogate is differentiable, it would also enable gradient-based optimization of inferred stellar parameters, a feature line-by-line radiative-transfer codes do not natively offer.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The submission consists of an abstract claiming a conditional variational autoencoder (CVAE) trained on a grid of SYNSPEC stellar spectra, with quantitative accuracy claims (median absolute residual below 1.8e-3 flux units, no wavelength-dependent bias, residual map below 2e-3, and roughly two orders of magnitude speedup over line-by-line radiative transfer), followed by a full text that is an unrelated quantum field theory paper titled 'Particle creation from entanglement entropy' by different authors. The body contains no CVAE, no SYNSPEC grid, no spectra, no training or validation procedure, no architecture description, and no residual diagnostics. The abstract's central claims therefore have no supporting material in the submitted document.

Significance. If substantiated, the claimed CVAE surrogate would be practically valuable for real-time forward modeling in stellar parameter inference, particularly for large spectroscopic surveys. The quantitative accuracy and speed figures stated in the abstract are exactly the kind of evidence that would justify that claim. However, the submitted manuscript provides no way to check, reproduce, or even locate the claimed model. The full text's analytic results on entanglement-entropy-driven particle creation are detailed and self-contained, but they belong to a different subject and do not support the abstract in any way. The paper as submitted therefore cannot be evaluated on its stated contribution.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract vs. full text] The abstract's central quantitative claims—median absolute residual below 1.8e-3 flux units, no wavelength-dependent bias, residual map below 2e-3, and roughly a hundredfold speedup over line-by-line radiative transfer—are not supported anywhere in the full text. The body is a quantum field theory paper on particle creation from entanglement entropy and contains no CVAE, no SYNSPEC spectra, no training grid, no validation set, and no residual analysis.
  2. [Full text (title, authors, arXiv identifier)] The document is internally inconsistent at the manuscript level: the abstract describes a stellar-spectra CVAE, while the full text carries a different title, different authors, and the arXiv identifier 2508.17067. No passage in the body connects the abstract's subject to the derivations presented, so the claimed surrogate is entirely absent from the submission.
  3. [Missing reproducibility information] Even setting aside the subject mismatch, the abstract's claim that the CVAE is a 'drop-in, physics-aware surrogate' cannot be checked because the body provides no architecture details, loss function, training procedure, hyperparameters, grid spacing, or code. These are load-bearing omissions for a machine-learning methods paper; without them the reported residual statistics are unverifiable.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a LaTeX typo in the effective-temperature range: '$T_{\mathrm{eff}$' is missing its closing brace.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'for any instrumental resolving powers less than 115,000' is ambiguous; the abstract does not explain how resolving power is incorporated into the model or whether the claimed accuracy holds uniformly across that range.
  3. [Abstract] The validation described in the abstract uses held-out SYNSPEC spectra from the same synthetic grid used for training; this tests interpolation within that grid, not agreement with observed stellar spectra, so the 'physics-aware' wording needs qualification in any revised version.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

CVAE validation is in-distribution against the same SYNSPEC grid used for training; the submitted full text is an unrelated QFT paper, so the claimed surrogate results are not independently supported.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract, validation paragraph (page 1)]
    "Trained on a grid of \textsc{SYNSPEC} spectra, the network synthesizes a spectrum in around two orders of magnitude faster than line-by-line radiative transfer. We validate the CVAE on $10^4$ test spectra unseen during training. Pixel-wise statistics yield a median absolute residual of <$1.8\times10^{-3}$ flux units with no wavelength-dependent bias."

    The residual statistics are computed against SYNSPEC spectra, the same generator that produced the training labels. The CVAE's parameters are fit to SYNSPEC outputs, and the 'prediction' is evaluated on held-out outputs of that same code. The reported median residual and error map therefore quantify interpolation within the SYNSPEC grid, not agreement with observed stellar spectra or an independent radiative-transfer implementation. The 'physics-aware surrogate' claim reduces to a curve-fit accuracy claim against the training distribution; no external physical benchmark is included. This is a partial circularity: the held-out set is in-distribution, so it supports generalization within the grid but not the drop-in physical fidelity asserted in the abstract.

full rationale

The only concrete validation offered in the abstract is a held-out test on spectra from the same SYNSPEC grid used for training. That is a legitimate in-distribution interpolation check, but it does not establish the 'drop-in, physics-aware surrogate' claim: the residual is measured against the very code whose outputs the network was trained to reproduce, so no independent physical or observational benchmark is involved. This is a moderate, not total, circularity; the held-out split does guard against memorization. Separately, the submitted full text (FTPI-MINN-25-10, 'Particle creation from entanglement entropy') contains no CVAE, no SYNSPEC grid, no spectra, and no residual maps; it is an unrelated quantum field theory manuscript by different authors. The abstract's quantitative claims are therefore unsupported by the document and cannot be checked or reproduced from it. I do not find evidence of self-citation chains, uniqueness arguments, or ansatz-smuggling; the circularity is limited to the in-sample validation design plus the document-level absence of the claimed derivation.

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

Because the full text does not correspond to the abstract, the ledger is reconstructed from the abstract's stated training and validation procedure. No architecture details or code are available to audit further.

free parameters (2)
  • CVAE architecture hyperparameters
    The abstract does not report latent dimension, layer sizes, learning rate, or other hyperparameters; these are free choices that affect the reported residual and speedup.
  • SYNSPEC grid spacing
    The abstract claims validity across continuous parameter ranges and arbitrary resolving powers below 115,000, but the spacing of the training grid is not described; the interpolation claim depends on this unstated choice.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption SYNSPEC synthetic spectra are an accurate ground truth for stellar spectra across the stated parameter range.
    The validity of the surrogate is judged against SYNSPEC output on held-out grid points; this presumes the synthetic grid represents real stellar physics. Stated in the abstract: 'Trained on a grid of SYNSPEC spectra.'
  • domain assumption The training grid is dense enough for interpolation across the continuous parameter space and for any resolving power below 115,000.
    The abstract claims spectra 'for any instrumental resolving powers less than 115,000' and continuous parameter coverage, which requires interpolation beyond the discrete grid; no evidence is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TheUse of Conditional Variational Autoencoders in Generating Stellar Spectra." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MDH6NNRT

@misc{pith2026250817059,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TheUse of Conditional Variational Autoencoders in Generating Stellar Spectra},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MDH6NNRT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17059}
}
abstract

We present a conditional variational autoencoder (CVAE) that generates stellar spectra covering 4000 $\le$ $T_{\mathrm{eff}$ $\le$ 11,000 K, $2.0 \le \log g \le 5.0$ dex, $-1.5 \le [\mathrm{M}/\mathrm{H}] \le +1.5$ dex, $v\sin i \le 300$ km/s, $\xi_t$ between 0 and 4 km/s, and for any instrumental resolving powers less than 115,000. The spectra can be calculated in the wavelength range 4450-5400 \AA. Trained on a grid of \textsc{SYNSPEC} spectra, the network synthesizes a spectrum in around two orders of magnitude faster than line-by-line radiative transfer. We validate the CVAE on $10^4$ test spectra unseen during training. Pixel-wise statistics yield a median absolute residual of <$1.8\times10^{-3}$ flux units with no wavelength-dependent bias. A residual error map across the parameters plane shows $\langle|\Delta F|\rangle<2\times10^{-3}$ everywhere, and marginal diagnostics versus $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$, $\log g$, $v\sin i$, $\xi_t$, and $[Fe/H]$\ reveal no relevant trends. These results demonstrate that the CVAE can serve as a drop-in, physics-aware surrogate for radiative transfer codes, enabling real-time forward modeling in stellar parameter inference and offering promising tools for spectra synthesis for large astrophysical data analysis.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduce a regularization

    work page

  2. [2]

    Compute particle distribution N(p)

    work page

  3. [3]

    One is the standard exponential cutoff: Sreg(t) =S(t)e−ε|t|, (28) whereS(t) is the original entropy

    Remove regularization, discarding contributions that are supported at p = 0 only For example, let us consider two choices of regulariza- tion. One is the standard exponential cutoff: Sreg(t) =S(t)e−ε|t|, (28) whereS(t) is the original entropy. The other is an energy- dependent cutoff, meaning that we compute the Fourier transform as Sreg ω = 1√ 2π Z ∞ −∞ ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Constant entanglement, as with constant velocity mo- tion, produces no energy and no particles, in agreement with the total stress-energy, Eq

    (31) Thus, the particle distribution vanishes after removing the regularization. Constant entanglement, as with constant velocity mo- tion, produces no energy and no particles, in agreement with the total stress-energy, Eq. (16). C. Uniformly Accelerated Mirror

    work page

  5. [5]

    Eternal In the relativistic case, it is well known that a mirror undergoing uniform proper acceleration does not radiate energy [35]. What does our non-relativistic particle cre- ation approximation predict in this case? Strictly speaking, the non-relativistic approximation is not applicable here, since for the constant-acceleration trajectory the velocit...

    work page

  6. [6]

    (35) Both the particle number and total energy vanish, as expected for uniform eternal acceleration

    work page

  7. [7]

    it from bit,

    Semi-eternal The situation changes dramatically if the uniform ac- celeration begins at a finite time. Consider a mirror that is at rest for t< 0 and accelerates for t> 0: z(t) =    0, t ⩽ 0, κt2 2 , t> 0. (36) The corresponding entropy is S(t) =    0, t ⩽ 0, S(0)t, t> 0. (37) Using the same regularization prescription, the particle spectrum no lo...

    work page

  8. [8]

    S. W. Hawking, Black hole explosions?, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes, Commun

    S. Hawking, Particle Creation by Black Holes, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  2. [10]

    P. C. W. Davies, Scalar production in Schwarzschild and Rindler metrics, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 8, 609 (1975). 6 Note that βR pq in [42] has an extra overall minus sign due to a slightly different contour convention; however, this is not im- portant, as...

    1975

  3. [11]

    W. G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D 14, 870 (1976)

    1976

  4. [12]

    B. S. DeWitt, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space- Time, Phys. Rept. 19, 295 (1975)

    1975

  5. [13]

    S. A. Fulling, Nonuniqueness of canonical field quanti- zation in Riemannian space-time, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2850 (1973)

    1973

  6. [14]

    S. A. Fulling and P. C. W. Davies, Radiation from a moving mirror in two dimensional space-time: Conformal anomaly, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 348, 393 (1976)

    1976

  7. [15]

    Davies and S

    P. Davies and S. Fulling, Radiation from Moving Mirrors and from Black Holes, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A A356, 237 (1977). 13

    1977

  8. [16]

    D. A. Trunin, Nonlinear dynamical Casimir effect at weak nonstationarity, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 440 (2022), arXiv:2108.07747 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Y.-C. Xie, S. Butera, and B.-L. Hu, Optomechanical Backreaction of Quantum Field Processes in Dynamical Casimir Effect, Comptes Rendus Physique 25, 1 (2024), arXiv:2308.03129 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. A. Paston and D. S. Shatkov, Searching for the classical version of Hawking radiation and screening of Coulomb field by the horizon, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 095002 (2025), arXiv:2412.06996 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    D. S. Ageev, I. Y. Aref’eva, and T. A. Rusalev, Black holes, cavities, and blinking islands, Phys. Rev. D 111, 026002 (2025), arXiv:2311.16244 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Belfiglio, O

    A. Belfiglio, O. Luongo, and S. Mancini, Entanglement area law violation from field-curvature coupling, Phys. Lett. B 848, 138398 (2024), arXiv:2306.08357 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    D. S. Ageev and I. Y. Aref’eva, Thermal density matrix breaks down the Page curve, Eur. Phys. J. Plus137, 1188 (2022), arXiv:2206.04094 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Belfiglio, O

    A. Belfiglio, O. Luongo, S. Mancini, and S. Tomasi, Entanglement entropy evolution during gravita- tional collapse, Phys. Rev. D 112, 045004 (2025), arXiv:2502.14797 [gr-qc]

    2025

  15. [23]

    M. H. Lynch, Experimental observation of a Rindler hori- zon, Gen. Rel. Grav. 57, 116 (2025), arXiv:2303.14642 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Osawa, K.-N

    Y. Osawa, K.-N. Lin, Y. Nambu, M. Hotta, and P. Chen, Final burst of the moving mirror is unrelated to the part- ner mode of analog Hawking radiation, Phys. Rev. D110, 025023 (2024), arXiv:2404.09446 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. H. Lynch, Analysis of the CERN-NA63 radiation re- action data set, assuming the Rindler bath is composed of microscopic black holes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 105009 (2024), arXiv:2404.09274 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. A. Wheeler, Information, physics, quantum: The search for links [PDF], in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, edited by W. H. Zurek (Addison- Wesley, Redwood City, 1990) pp. 354–368

    1990

  19. [27]

    Holzhey, F

    C. Holzhey, F. Larsen, and F. Wilczek, Geometric and renormalized entropy in conformal field theory, Nucl. Phys. B 424, 443 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9403108

    1994 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M. R. R. Good, Extremal Hawking radiation, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104050 (2020), arXiv:2003.07016 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Fitkevich, D

    M. Fitkevich, D. Levkov, and Y. Zenkevich, Dilaton grav- ity with a boundary: from unitarity to black hole evapo- ration, JHEP 06, 184 (2020), arXiv:2004.13745 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Myrzakul, C

    A. Myrzakul, C. Xiong, and M. R. R. Good, CGHS Black Hole Analog Moving Mirror and Its Relativistic Quantum Information as Radiation Reaction, Entropy 23, 1664 (2021), arXiv:2101.08139 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Bianchi and M

    E. Bianchi and M. Smerlak, Entanglement entropy and negative energy in two dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 90, 041904 (2014), arXiv:1404.0602 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chen and D.-h

    P. Chen and D.-h. Yeom, Entropy evolution of moving mirrors and the information loss problem, Phys. Rev. D 96, 025016 (2017), arXiv:1704.08613 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  25. [33]

    M. R. R. Good and Y. C. Ong, Signatures of Energy Flux in Particle Production: A Black Hole Birth Cry and Death Gasp, JHEP 07, 145 (2015), arXiv:1506.08072 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. R. R. Good and E. V. Linder, M¨ obius mirrors, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 105003 (2022), arXiv:2108.07451 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mujtaba, E

    A. Mujtaba, E. Ievlev, M. J. Gorban, and M. R. R. Good, Quantum radiation from round-trip flying mirrors, Phys. Rev. D 111, 065011 (2025), arXiv:2411.03521 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. R. R. Good and E. V. Linder, Quantum power: a Lorentz invariant approach to Hawking radiation, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 204 (2022), arXiv:2111.15148 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R. P. Feynman, Feynman lectures on gravitation , edited by F. B. Morinigo, W. G. Wagner, and B. Hatfield (1996)

    1996

  30. [38]

    W. R. Walker, Particle and energy creation by moving mirrors, Phys. Rev. D 31, 767 (1985)

    1985

  31. [39]

    Bianchi and M

    E. Bianchi and M. Smerlak, Last gasp of a black hole: unitary evaporation implies non-monotonic mass loss, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1809 (2014), arXiv:1405.5235 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. N. Page, Information in black hole radiation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3743 (1993), arXiv:hep-th/9306083

    1993 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. R. R. Good, E. V. Linder, and F. Wilczek, Mov- ing mirror model for quasithermal radiation fields, Phys. Rev. D 101, 025012 (2020), arXiv:1909.01129 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    N. D. Birrell and P. C. W. Davies, Quantum Fields in Curved Space, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1982)

    1982

  35. [43]

    Ievlev and M

    E. Ievlev and M. R. R. Good, Thermal Larmor Radiation, PTEP 2024, 043A01 (2024), arXiv:2303.03676 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    C. S. W. Chang and D. L. Falkoff, On the continuous gamma-radiation accompanying the beta-decay of nuclei, Phys. Rev. 76, 365 (1949)

    1949

  37. [45]

    M. H. Lynch, E. Ievlev, and M. R. R. Good, Acceler- ated electron thermometer: observation of 1D Planck ra- diation, PTEP 2024, 023D01 (2024), arXiv:2211.14774 [nucl-ex]

    2024

  38. [46]

    M. R. R. Good and P. C. W. Davies, Infrared Ac- celeration Radiation, Found. Phys. 53, 53 (2023), arXiv:2206.07291 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. Lang, R. Sch¨ utzhold, and W. G. Unruh, Quantum radiation in dielectric media with dispersion and dissipa- tion, Phys. Rev. D 102, 125020 (2020), arXiv:1912.09869 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. R. R. Good, P. R. Anderson, and C. R. Evans, Time dependence of particle creation from accelerating mir- rors, Phys. Rev. D 88, 025023 (2013), arXiv:1303.6756 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. R. R. Good, Reflecting at the Speed of Light (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017)

    2017

  42. [50]

    Fabbri and J

    A. Fabbri and J. Navarro-Salas,Modeling black hole evap- oration (World Scientific, Singapore, 2005)

    2005

Pith tools

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