Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 39 references

The paper argues that the planned Square Kilometre Array, at its full AA4 design baseline, is sufficient to make solar, heliospheric, and ionospheric physics work end to end.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 16:43 UTC pith:F7YJXPRE

load-bearing objection A candid, well-organized SKAO SHI roadmap whose central claim — AA4 baseline is 'sufficient' — overreaches on a processing layer the authors themselves admit isn't in the baseline. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17881 v2 pith:F7YJXPRE submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM

Solar, Heliospheric and Ionospheric Physics: Pathfinders, Precursors and SKAO Perspective

Pietro Zucca , Rohit Sharma , Divya Oberoi , Eduard Kontar , John Morgan , Peter Gallagher , Sven Wedemeyer , Biagio Forte This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.IM
keywords solar physicsheliospheric physicsionosphereradio interferometrycoronal heatingcoronal mass ejectionsspace weatherSKA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that the planned Square Kilometre Array, at its full AA4 design baseline, is sufficient to make solar, heliospheric, and ionospheric physics work as one continuous Sun-to-Earth science programme. The two telescopes — SKA1-Low (50–350 MHz) and SKA1-Mid (0.35–15.4 GHz) — would together provide an order-of-magnitude sensitivity gain, sub-arcsecond resolution, full-Stokes polarimetry, and continuous spectral coverage. If that claim is correct, the same facility could test the nanoflare theory of coronal heating with population-scale samples, map the magnetic field inside coronal mass ejections, separate intrinsic solar emission from turbulent scattering, and monitor Earth's ionosphere from kilometre scales upward. The paper also makes clear that the programme's scientific breadth rests on the AA4 engineering specifications being realised in practice.

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central claim is that Array Assembly 4 (AA4) — the design baseline of 512 stations for SKA1-Low and 197 dishes for SKA1-Mid, with sky sensitivity of about 1000 m²/K at 110 MHz and 1600 m²/K at 1.4 GHz, polarisation leakage below 0.1% after calibration, and angular resolutions around 7 arcsec and 0.04 arcsec respectively — is sufficient to meet every science requirement articulated by the 16 contributing chapters. The authors organise those chapters as a physical chain running from coronal energy release, through heliospheric turbulence and solar-wind diagnostics, to the ionosphere and geospace. On that basis they argue that SKA would enable statistical tests of

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AA4 array assembly specification: SKA1-Low at 50–350 MHz with 512 stations and ~7 arcsec resolution, and SKA1-Mid at 0.35–15.4 GHz with 197 dishes and ~0.04 arcsec resolution at 15 GHz, together with full-Stokes spectropolarimetry, polarisation leakage below 0.1%, snapshot dynamic range above 10^5, and time resolution at or below 50 ms. This is the mechanism that lets a single baseline serve all 16 science cases at once: high resolution for imaging flaring loops and CMEs, wide continuous frequency coverage for tracing bursts from the low corona to the heliosphere, and full polarimetry for magnetic-field diagnostics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quoted AA4 performance numbers — 512 stations, 197 dishes, A_eff/Tsys around 1000 and 1600 m²/K, polarisation leakage below 0.1%, and resolutions near 7 and 0.04 arcsec — are accurate and will hold in operation; they are asserted without a primary engineering-baseline reference, and any material degradation would invalidate the 'sufficient' conclusion.

What would settle it

Early in science operations, compare measured on-sky values of A_eff/Tsys at 110 MHz and 1.4 GHz, calibrated polarisation leakage, and achieved angular resolution with the AA4 specifications in Table 1. A shortfall greater than about 20% in sensitivity, or leakage above 0.1%, would falsify the paper's central claim. A second test: resolved imaging of quiet-Sun burst sources at the predicted sizes should confirm whether coronal scattering is weak enough for sub-arcsecond imaging to work as assumed.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The nanoflare hypothesis can be tested at population scale: the order-of-magnitude sensitivity gain, combined with the steep event-energy power law, yields samples large enough to measure the slope of the event energy distribution.
  • CME magnetic fields — specifically the B_z component that sets geoeffectiveness — can be mapped tomographically through Faraday rotation of tens to hundreds of background polarised sources, instead of one or a few lines of sight.
  • Coronal magnetic field strengths can be recovered to a few percent precision from resolved gyroresonance layers at GHz frequencies, complementing photospheric extrapolations.
  • Interplanetary scintillation and angular-broadening measurements gain enough source density (>10^4 compact sources within a few degrees of the Sun) to reconstruct solar-wind structure in near-real time.
  • The paper itself identifies gaps — real-time space-weather delivery, multi-mission coordination, long-term synoptic monitoring, and a common forward-modelling framework for low frequencies — as work needed before the full programme is realised (Sections 6–7).

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A step the paper only gestures at: if the quiet-Sun transient population really follows the steep power law the nanoflare picture assumes, the order-of-magnitude sensitivity gain could turn the slope measurement into a direct calorimetric census of the nonthermal energy budget — a test that current instruments cannot approach.
  • The Faraday-rotation tomography idea could be extended into an operational space-weather tool: a dedicated mode that continuously monitors a grid of polarised background sources through the inner heliosphere could in principle provide real-time maps of the approaching CME's B_z, not just post-event reconstructions.
  • The 'coronal seeing' programme implies a new use for scattering measurements: source broadening as a function of frequency gives a remote measure of turbulence anisotropy and magnetic-field orientation in the corona and inner heliosphere, which could be cross-checked against in-situ measurements from solar probes.
  • Because the standard data-archive model is not designed for millisecond-cadence burst imaging or low-latency products, the paper's own gap analysis implies that the SHI science case will require a separate, dedicated processing pipeline upstream of the standard archive; whether this can be built without new funding is an open question.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This overview chapter, prepared by the SKAO Solar, Heliospheric and Ionospheric Physics Science Working Group, synthesizes 16 companion contributions to Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA-II and argues that the AA4 design baseline of SKA1-Low and SKA1-Mid is sufficient to deliver transformative SHI science. It spans quiet-Sun and coronal-heating studies, flare and burst physics, coronal magnetography, CME magnetic-field diagnostics, heliospheric turbulence and IPS, ionospheric science, stellar-solar connections, and the calibration/data-analysis framework. The paper frames these topics as an end-to-end Sun-to-Earth chain, identifies cross-cutting gaps, and proposes a staged roadmap from early array assemblies to full AA4 operations.

Significance. If the capability forecast holds, the paper makes a strong, well-structured case that SKAO will uniquely combine continuous 50 MHz-15.4 GHz spectral coverage, sub-arcsecond resolution, full-Stokes polarimetry, and order-of-magnitude sensitivity gains, enabling population-scale tests of nanoflare heating, tomographic CME magnetography, multi-scale heliospheric turbulence studies, and ionospheric monitoring at unprecedented resolution. The chapter builds on published MWA, LOFAR, and MeerKAT pathfinder results and forward models rather than on new derivations, which is appropriate for an overview. Table 1 provides a useful capability comparison, and Section 6 candidly identifies calibration, data-rate, and archiving challenges. The central 'sufficiency' conclusion, however, is conditional on an SHI-specific processing layer that the paper itself says is not in the baseline, and the quoted AA4 performance numbers are asserted without primary SKAO specification citations.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, 'AA4 capabilities and the staged roadmap'] The central claim that 'the AA4 design baseline is sufficient to achieve transformative SHI science' is not established by the hardware parameters alone. Section 6 explicitly states that the standard SRCNet model 'does not in its baseline form address solar-specific flux/polarisation calibration, high-cadence (≲50 ms) burst imaging spectroscopy, or the near-real-time products required for space weather,' and that a 'dedicated, low-latency SHI processing layer upstream of SRCNet is therefore likely needed.' Several headline science cases—CME Faraday-rotation tomography, type II burst tracking, IPS tomography, and operational space-weather products—depend on this layer. The sufficiency claim should be reworded to make the processing layer an explicit prerequisite or risk, or the conclusion should be scoped to science achievable through archival post-processing alone.
  2. [Section 1 and Table 1] The AA4 performance numbers—512 stations, 197 dishes, A_eff/Tsys of about 1000 and 1600 m^2/K, polarization leakage below 0.1%, and resolutions of about 7 arcsec (Low) and 0.04 arcsec (Mid)—are load-bearing: every downstream science case assumes them. Yet no primary SKAO baseline specification is cited. Please cite the relevant SKAO system-baseline document or explicitly state these are assumptions. If the values are provisional, the sensitivity of the 'sufficient' claim to plausible degradations should be discussed.
  3. [Section 7 and References] The statement that the 16 companion chapters 'collectively demonstrate' sufficiency is not independently verifiable from the preprint: these chapters are cited only by report number (e.g., AASKAII/Oberoi01), with no arXiv identifiers or publicly accessible text. Because the overview's conclusion rests on the detailed arguments in those chapters, provide accessible citations (arXiv IDs or DOIs) or summarize the quantitative results that support the most load-bearing claims, particularly the SHI calibration and data-analysis framework described in Section 6.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4 vs. Table 1] Section 2.4 quotes ~0.1 arcsec resolution for SKA1-Mid Band 5 gyrosynchrotron imaging, whereas Table 1 lists ~0.04 arcsec at 15 GHz. Clarify the frequency, baseline, and uv-coverage assumptions so the two numbers are consistent.
  2. [Section 6] The data-rate figure of '>10 TB hr^-1' should specify whether this is the array total or per station, and which observing mode it corresponds to, so that the processing-layer discussion is concrete.
  3. [References] The AASKAII companion chapters are listed with 'arXiv search: Report number' rather than standard bibliographic entries. Please replace these with arXiv identifiers or DOIs once available; this is also relevant to Major Comment 3.
  4. [Section 1] The abbreviation 'AA*' appears without definition or context. Please define it, as the reader is expected to understand the staged array-assembly terminology.
  5. [Section 3.2] The statement that SKAO will detect '>10^4' compact background sources within a few degrees of the Sun is a quantitative claim that should carry a citation to the relevant companion chapter or a published source-count estimate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central AA4-sufficiency claim rests on the authors' own inaccessible companion chapters; internal note on missing SHI processing layer weakens scope but is not itself circular.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 7, 'AA4 capabilities and the staged roadmap']
    "The 16 chapters collectively demonstrate that the AA4 design baseline is sufficient to achieve transformative SHI science across the full range of topics considered here."

    This is the paper's central sufficiency claim, and the only cited demonstration is 16 companion AASKAII chapters written within the same SHI working group (several overview co-authors appear in them: e.g., Kontar, Sharma, Oberoi) and listed only by report numbers (AASKAII/Mondal01, AASKAII/Oberoi01, etc.) with no accessible text. The conclusion therefore does not reduce to an independently checkable derivation; it leans on the authors' own unverified synthesis. The AA4 hardware parameters are asserted rather than fitted, and the pathfinder measurements cited (MWA/LOFAR, e.g., Mondal et al. 2020; Sharma et al. 2022) are external and peer-reviewed, so the circularity is partial rather than by-construction.

full rationale

The paper is a science-case overview rather than a derivation. No equations are fitted to data, no prediction is constructed from its inputs, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The strongest possible circular concern is the Section 7 claim that the 16 companion chapters 'collectively demonstrate' AA4 sufficiency; those chapters are by the same working group and not yet accessible, making the central claim depend on unverifiable self-citation. However, the claim has independent content: it rests on concrete (if asserted) AA4 parameters and on externally published pathfinder results. Separately, the paper itself undermines the scope of the sufficiency claim in Sections 6-7 by stating that the standard SKAO/SRCNet baseline 'does not in its baseline form address solar-specific flux/polarisation calibration, high-cadence (≲50 ms) burst imaging spectroscopy, or the near-real-time products required for space weather' and that a 'dedicated, low-latency SHI processing layer upstream of SRCNet is therefore likely needed.' This is a logical gap or overclaim about an uncommitted system component, not a circularity in the derivation chain. Overall circularity is minor and limited to the self-referential support for the central assertion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on unverified AA4 design numbers, on companion chapters that cannot be checked, and on the assumption that pathfinder results scale to SKAO. No fitting parameters or new physical entities are introduced.

axioms (3)
  • domain assumption AA4 hardware parameters as quoted (512 stations, 197 dishes, A_eff/Tsys ~1000 and ~1600 m^2/K, polarization leakage <=0.1%, resolutions in Table 1) are accurate.
    Stated in Section 1 and Table 1 without a primary SKAO baseline specification; every science case in the chapter assumes these numbers.
  • domain assumption The 16 companion AASKAII chapters correctly and completely support the summarized capabilities.
    Section 7 uses them as demonstration, but References list only report numbers, not accessible preprints or DOIs.
  • domain assumption Pathfinder results (MWA weak transients, LOFAR stria bursts, ~9 arcsec noise-storm cores) extrapolate to SKAO capabilities as stated.
    Sections 2.1-2.3 assume sensitivity gains and u-v coverage will yield the predicted samples; no end-to-end simulation is provided.
invented entities (1)
  • Dedicated low-latency SHI processing layer upstream of SRCNet no independent evidence
    purpose: Provide solar-specific calibration, millisecond burst imaging spectroscopy, and near-real-time space-weather products.
    Proposed in Sections 6-7 with no interface specification, latency budget, or feasibility demonstration; it is an organizational postulate.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9486 in / 10926 out tokens · 98053 ms · 2026-08-01T16:43:05.324752+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Solar, Heliospheric and Ionospheric (SHI) Physics Science Working Group of the Square Kilometre Array Observatory (SKAO) addresses the full chain of plasma processes linking the solar corona to the terrestrial environment. This overview chapter synthesises 16 topical contributions to Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA-II, spanning the quiet and active solar atmosphere, eruptive phenomena, heliospheric turbulence and solar-wind diagnostics, ionospheric science, stellar-solar connections, and the observational frameworks required to deliver these science goals. The primary focus is on the capabilities of Array Assembly 4 (AA4), the design baseline for both SKA-LOW (50-350,MHz) and SKA-MID (0.35-15.4,GHz), which together provide continuous spectral coverage, sub-arcsecond angular resolution, full-Stokes polarimetry, and sensitivity gains of an order of magnitude over existing facilities. From resolving fine-scale coronal heating events to mapping coronal mass ejection magnetic fields and characterising multi-scale heliospheric turbulence, SKAO will deliver transformative advances in solar and space-weather science. We frame these contributions as a single end-to-end Sun-to-Earth system. We identify cross-cutting themes and gaps not fully addressed by individual chapters and outline the staged roadmap from early operations through to the full AA4 capability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17881 by Biagio Forte, Divya Oberoi, Eduard Kontar, John Morgan, Peter Gallagher, Pietro Zucca, Rohit Sharma, Sven Wedemeyer.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Frequency–height diagram for solar radio observations with SKA1-Low and SKA1-Mid. The shaded regions indicate the approximate coronal and heliospheric heights probed at each frequency via plasma emission (left axis), while the horizontal bars mark the receiver bands and the angular resolution achieved at AA4 baselines. Emission mechanisms transition from gyroresonance and bremsstrahlung at GHz frequencies … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the 16 SHI topical chapters in Advancing Astrophysics with the SKA – II and their interconnections. Arrows indicate scientific dependencies. The observational framework chapter of Oberoi et al. (2026) underpins all SHI science. the detailed architecture of a space-weather data stream from SKAO remains to be developed and would rely on the dedicated SHI processing layer of Section 6. Multi-messe… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    and Oberoi, Divya , title =

    Nindos, Alexander and Kontar, Eduard P. and Oberoi, Divya , title =. Advances in Space Research , volume =. 2019 , doi =

    2019

  2. [2]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume =

    Mondal, Surajit and Oberoi, Divya and Mohan, Atul , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  3. [3]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume =

    Kansabanik, Devojyoti and Oberoi, Divya and Mondal, Surajit , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  4. [4]

    Bourke, T. L. and Braun, R. and Fender, R. and Govoni, F. and Green, J. and Hoare, M. and Jarvis, M. and Johnston-Hollitt, M. and Keane, E. and Koopmans, L. and Lazio, J. and Morgan, J. and Norris, R. and Prandoni, I. and Stappers, B. , title =. Proceedings of Science (AASKA14) , year =

  5. [5]

    Parker, E. N. , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , volume =

  6. [6]

    Kontar, E. P. and Yu, S. and Kuznetsov, A. A. and Emslie, A. G. and Alcock, B. and Jeffrey, N. L. S. and Melnik, V. N. and Bian, N. H. and Subramanian, P. , title =. Nature Communications , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  7. [7]

    and Macquart, J.-P

    Morgan, John S. and Macquart, J.-P. and Ekers, Ron and Chhetri, Rajan and Tokumaru, Munetoshi and Manoharan, P. K. and Bisi, Mario M. and Fallows, R. A. and Gallagher, Peter T. , title =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  8. [8]

    and Bastian, T

    Wedemeyer, S. and Bastian, T. and Brajsa, R. and Hudson, H. and Fleishman, G. and Loukitcheva, M. and Gary, D. E. and Nindos, A. and White, S. M. and Oliveira e Silva, A. J. and Antolin, P. , title =. Space Science Reviews , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  9. [9]

    Nakariakov, V. M. and Kolotkov, D. Y. , title =. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  10. [10]

    and Tiburzi, Caterina and Tokumaru, Munetoshi and Nindos, Alexander and Bisi, Mario M

    Kooi, Jason E. and Tiburzi, Caterina and Tokumaru, Munetoshi and Nindos, Alexander and Bisi, Mario M. and Jensen, Elizabeth A. and Mancuso, Salvatore and Polisensky, Emil and Spangler, Steven R. and Howard, Timothy A. , title =. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  11. [11]

    Oberoi, Divya and Sharma, Rohit and Rogers, Alan E. E. , title =. Solar Physics , volume =. 2017 , doi =

    2017

  12. [12]

    Reid, Hamish A. S. and Ratcliffe, Heather , title =. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics , volume =. 2014 , doi =

    2014

  13. [13]

    and Holman, Gordon D

    Chrysaphi, Nicolina and Kontar, Eduard P. and Holman, Gordon D. and Temmer, Manuela , title =. The Astrophysical Journal , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  14. [14]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume =

    M. Astronomy & Astrophysics , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  15. [15]

    Fox, N. J. and Velli, M. C. and Bale, S. D. and Decker, R. and Driesman, A. and Howard, R. A. and Kasper, J. C. and Kinnison, J. and Kusterer, M. and Lario, D. and Lockwood, M. K. and McComas, D. J. and Raouafi, N. E. and Szabo, A. , title =. Space Science Reviews , volume =. 2016 , doi =

    2016

  16. [16]

    and Testa, P

    De Pontieu, B. and Testa, P. and Mart. The Multi-Slit Solar Explorer (. The Astrophysical Journal , volume =. 2022 , doi =

    2022

  17. [17]

    Rimmele, T. R. and Warner, M. and Keil, S. L. and others , title =. Solar Physics , volume =. 2020 , doi =

    2020

  18. [18]

    Srivastava, A. K. and Raghav, A. N. and Shaikh, Z. I. and others , title =. Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences , volume =

  19. [19]

    Vourlidas, Angelos and Gibson, S. E. and Howard, R. A. and others , title =. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society , volume =

  20. [20]

    and Carley, E

    Zucca, P. and Carley, E. P. and McCauley, P. I. and Gallagher, P. T. and Monstein, C. and McAteer, R. T. J. , title =. Solar Physics , volume =. 2018 , doi =

    2018

  21. [21]

    , keywords =

    Detection of Ubiquitous Weak and Impulsive Nonthermal Emissions from the Solar Corona. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac87fc , archivePrefix =. 2208.07147 , primaryClass =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [22]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Surajit Mondal and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  23. [23]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Divya Oberoi and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  24. [24]

    Morosan and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =

    Diana E. Morosan and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  25. [25]

    Cheung and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =

    Mark C.M. Cheung and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  26. [26]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Devojyoti Kansabanik and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  27. [27]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Rohit Sharma and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  28. [28]

    Dr. K. Sasikumar Raja and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  29. [29]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Nicolina Chrysaphi and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  30. [30]

    2026 ,publisher =

    John Morgan and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  31. [31]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Anshu Kumari and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  32. [32]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Abhirup Datta and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  33. [33]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Deepan Patra and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  34. [34]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Eduard Kontar and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  35. [35]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Soham Dey and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  36. [36]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Atul Mohan and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  37. [37]

    Nakariakov and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =

    Valery M. Nakariakov and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  38. [38]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Peijin Zhang and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026

  39. [39]

    2026 ,publisher =

    Pietro Zucca and author2 and author3 and author4 and author5 ,title =. 2026 ,publisher =

    2026