Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

This paper argues that the Affleck–Dine curvaton can generate both the baryon asymmetry and the observed curvature perturbations if correlated baryon isocurvature is cancelled by anti-correlated gravitino dark-matter isocurvature.

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 08:46 UTC pith:DQB3SIKV

load-bearing objection The compensated-isocurvature idea is genuine and the gravity-mediated branch may work, but the delayed-type parameter range as stated is internally inconsistent because the inflaton's own curvature perturbations can no longer be neglected. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21008 v1 pith:DQB3SIKV submitted 2026-07-23 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Reviving the Affleck-Dine Curvaton Scenario with Compensated Isocurvature Perturbations

Masahiro Kawasaki , Shunsuke Neda This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph PACS 98.80.Cq95.35.+d
keywords Affleck-Dine mechanismcurvatonbaryogenesisQ-ballsisocurvature perturbationscompensated isocurvaturegravitino dark mattersupersymmetric cosmology
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.

The paper tries to rehabilitate the Affleck–Dine curvaton within supersymmetry: a single scalar field carrying baryon number is supposed to supply both the cosmic baryon asymmetry and the observed curvature perturbations. The known obstacle is that fluctuations of that field inevitably imprint correlated baryon isocurvature perturbations, which CMB data strongly rule out. The paper's proposal is to arrange an exactly compensating anti-correlated isocurvature perturbation in gravitino dark matter, so the total matter isocurvature nearly vanishes. Under that cancellation, with n=6 and Q-ball formation included, the authors find specific windows for the inflationary Hubble parameter — around 3×10^11 to 10^12 GeV for gravity-mediated Q-balls and up to roughly 5×10^14 GeV for delayed-type Q-balls — where both the baryon asymmetry and the curvature amplitude are reproduced. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper reopens a path in which one field gives both baryogenesis and the seeds of cosmic structure, a scenario that had been considered observationally closed.

Core claim

Starting from the supersymmetric Affleck–Dine potential, the curvature perturbation from Q-ball decay is ζ = (2/3 − α/6) f_dec δφ/φ, with α = −2 for gravity-mediated-type Q-balls and α ≈ 0 for delayed-type Q-balls. The correlated baryon isocurvature perturbation is proportional to ζ, hence too large. The paper's key step is to add thermally produced gravitino dark matter that decouples before Q-ball decay, giving S_dm,corr = −3ζ, and to demand that the weighted sum of baryon and dark-matter isocurvature vanish. That requirement yields f_dec ≈ 2nΩ_B/[(4−α)Ω_m], about 0.314 for n=6, α=−2 and 0.471 for n=6, α=0. With the CMB normalization fixing φ_osc in terms of H_I, the authors show that BBN,

What carries the argument

The central object is the Affleck–Dine field, a complex flat-direction scalar in supersymmetry that carries baryon number, treated as nearly massless during inflation and then oscillating after H ≈ m_Φ. The argument is carried by the δN formalism with two expansion steps (onset of oscillation and Q-ball decay), the Q-ball decay rate Γ ∝ φ^α, and the quantity f_dec, the fraction of the energy density in the AD condensate at decay. The load-bearing formula is the cancellation identity f_dec ≈ 2nΩ_B/[(4−α)Ω_m], which converts a lethal correlated baryon isocurvature mode into a harmless compensated mode by requiring exact anti-correlation with gravitino dark matter. Q-ball formation is essential

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes the inflaton itself makes a negligible contribution to the observed curvature perturbations, but the measured spectral index forces a relatively steep inflaton slope whose own curvature power becomes non-negligible over most of the claimed Hubble-parameter range.

What would settle it

Use the paper's own formulas: take n_s = 0.965, hence ϵ ≈ 0.015–0.020, and evaluate P_ζ,infl = H_I²/(8π²M_pl²ϵ). For H_I = 5×10^14 GeV this exceeds the observed P_ζ by an order of magnitude, so the claimed delayed-type window is falsified by this calculation alone once the inflaton contribution is included; a measurement of the tensor-to-scalar ratio at H_I ≳ 4.7×10^13 GeV would provide an observational check. Separately, a 21 cm measurement that distinguishes baryon from dark-matter isocurvature could falsify the specific compensated-cancellation prediction.

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

If this is right

  • If the mechanism works, a single Affleck–Dine field can simultaneously give η_B ≈ 10^-10 and P_ζ ≈ 2.1×10^-9, removing the need for a separate curvaton and a separate baryogenesis sector.
  • The linear-order correlated matter isocurvature is predicted to be nearly zero, so current CMB bounds are evaded; the remaining signal is a compensated baryon-versus-dark-matter isocurvature that future 21 cm observations could in principle separate and detect.
  • Gravitino dark matter with masses in roughly the 1 GeV to 10^4 GeV range is singled out as the component supplying the anti-correlation, linking the scenario to gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking.
  • Specific viable parameter windows are claimed: 3×10^11 ≲ H_I ≲ 10^12 GeV for gravity-mediated Q-balls, and 10^12 ≲ H_I ≲ 5×10^14 GeV with 10^6 ≲ M_F ≲ 10^10 GeV for delayed-type Q-balls, with f_NL ≈ 3.4 or 0.6 respectively.
  • Because the curvaton rather than the inflaton generates the perturbations, a relatively steep large-field inflaton potential can remain consistent with the tensor-to-scalar bound, a relaxation the paper states explicitly.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The viability of the claimed high-H_I windows depends on dropping the paper's assumption that inflaton curvature is negligible: with n_s = 0.965 forcing ϵ ≈ 0.015–0.020, the single-field inflaton power P_ζ,infl ≈ H_I²/(8π²M_pl²ϵ) already exceeds 1% of the observed value for H_I ≳ 10^13 GeV and surpasses it by an order of magnitude at H_I = 5×10^14 GeV, so the delayed-type allowed region should be
  • The compensation mechanism is not unique to gravitinos: any dark-matter component that decouples before curvaton decay and inherits no curvature perturbation would play the same role, so the idea could survive even if the specific gravitino mass window were excluded.
  • A hybrid scenario in which the inflaton and curvaton both contribute (which the paper mentions as a possibility) would alter the cancellation condition, because the dark-matter perturbation would then also correlate with the inflaton-generated part of ζ; working out that coupled system is a natural next step.
  • The required phase tuning near nθ ≈ π/2 is a sharp prediction: if future non-Gaussianity or 21 cm measurements constrain the angular direction of the Affleck–Dine field, they would directly test the fine-tuning on which this revival depends.

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. The paper revisits the Affleck-Dine curvaton scenario in supersymmetry, including Q-ball formation. It assumes the AD field is effectively massless during inflation and that its decay generates both the observed curvature perturbation and the baryon asymmetry. The central new ingredient is a compensation mechanism: correlated baryon isocurvature perturbations, which normally make the AD curvaton unviable, are cancelled by anti-correlated dark-matter isocurvature perturbations from gravitinos produced before Q-ball decay. The authors derive the conditions for this cancellation, obtain constraints from BBN, reheating, gravitino LSP, and tensor modes, and identify allowed windows for gravity-mediated-type and delayed-type Q-balls.

Significance. If correct, the paper removes a long-standing obstruction to the SUSY Affleck-Dine curvaton scenario. The δN derivation, the f_NL algebra, and the isocurvature-compensation condition are explicit and internally consistent, and the resulting parameter windows are concrete and testable. The paper also correctly emphasizes that future 21-cm observations can probe the compensated baryon/dark-matter mode. The main weakness is that the delayed-type branch, as quoted, is not self-consistent once the inflaton's own curvature perturbation is included.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.5 and Sec. 5, Eq. (5.1)] The paper assumes throughout that the inflaton contribution to ζ is negligible, and Eq. (5.1) requires ϵ ≃ 0.015–0.020 to match n_s. For a canonical inflaton, P_ζ,infl = H_I²/(8π²ϵM_pl²); with P_ζ,obs = 2.1×10⁻⁹ this gives P_ζ,infl/P_ζ,obs ≈ 0.13 at H_I = 4.7×10¹³ GeV and exceeds unity for H_I > 1.3×10¹⁴ GeV. The delayed-type window in Eq. (4.21) extends to 5×10¹⁴ GeV, so the 'negligible inflaton' assumption fails by orders of magnitude there. In that regime Eq. (3.5) and the compensation condition Eq. (3.7) must be replaced by a two-field δN calculation. The gravity-mediated window Eq. (4.10), with H_I ≲ 10¹² GeV, is safe; the delayed branch as stated is not.
  2. [Eq. (4.21) and Fig. 4] The quoted delayed-type upper bound H_I ≲ 5×10¹⁴ GeV is inconsistent with the tensor bound r < 0.035 used in Sec. 4.1 and displayed as the red exclusion region in Fig. 4. That bound gives H_I ≲ 4.7×10¹³ GeV; at H_I = 5×10¹⁴ GeV one has r ≈ 4. Eq. (4.21) should be corrected, and the delayed-branch allowed region must be re-presented consistently with Fig. 4 and with the inflaton-contamination requirement above.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.1)] The scenario depends on |c| ≪ 1 and |λ| ≪ 1 for the AD field to be effectively massless during inflation. No symmetry or dynamical mechanism is proposed to realize these conditions; in generic SUGRA, the Hubble-induced mass coefficient c is O(1). Since the massless-field assumption underlies Eq. (2.2), the CMB normalization Eq. (2.38), the spectral index Eq. (5.1), and all derived windows, the paper should discuss how such small coefficients can arise and quantify the required tuning.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.3 heading] Typo: 'formtion' should be 'formation'.
  2. [Eq. (2.7) and (2.8)] The quantity ᾱ (tilde a) is used in Eq. (2.7) before its definition in Eq. (2.8); defining it earlier would improve readability.
  3. [Eqs. (4.6)–(4.8) and (4.16)–(4.18)] These scaling relations are helpful, but the reference values for |K|, g_dec, m_gluino, and M_F should be stated plainly in the text near each equation, not only in the figures.
  4. [Sec. 3] The definitions of S_B and S_dm in the flat gauge are implicit. A brief sentence defining S_i = δρ_i/ρ_i − 3ζ would make the compensation argument easier to follow.
  5. [Figures 3 and 4] The captions describe the colored regions but do not state the exact numerical boundaries of the white (allowed) regions. Adding the bounding values in the captions would help the reader check Eqs. (4.10) and (4.21).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the compensation condition is a derived requirement from the DM production assumption, and the parameter windows follow from external constraints; the n_s/epsilon issue is an internal-consistency concern, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the required sense. The key cancellation condition, f_dec ≃ 2nΩ_B/((4−α)Ω_m) (Eq. 3.7), is not inserted by construction: it follows from setting S_m,corr = 0 in Eq. (3.6), where S_dm,corr = −3ζ is derived from the physical assumption that gravitino DM is produced before curvaton decay and is therefore unperturbed on flat slices (Eq. 3.5). No equation is defined in terms of the claimed result. The CMB normalization Eq. (2.38) and the baryon-asymmetry relation Eq. (2.39) use the observed P_ζ and η_B to fix model parameters (φ_osc, ã), which is standard model-building rather than a predictive fit passed off as independent. The allowed regions in Sec. 4 are obtained by confronting those parameters with external constraints (BBN T_dec > 1 MeV, r < 0.035, gravitino LSP, H_osc > H(T_R)); these are not equivalent to the inputs. Self-citations appear ([6], [13], [19]–[21]) but only for standard Q-ball properties, the gravitino yield, or background literature; none of these citations is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the paper's own derivation. The explicit caveat 'we assume throughout this paper that the contribution of the inflaton to the curvature perturbations is negligible' (Sec. 2, p.2) is noted; it creates a possible self-consistency issue at large H_I in the delayed-type window (Eq. 4.21) when combined with the n_s = 1 − 2ε requirement (Eq. 5.1), but that is an internal-consistency problem, not a circular reduction: the compensation condition does not reduce to its inputs, and the quoted equations are not equivalent by construction. Therefore no circular step can be identified under the stipulated standards.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

10 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of domain assumptions: the AD potential, gauge-mediated SUSY breaking with two Q-ball regimes, the gravitino LSP and its thermal abundance, and the massless-AD-field condition. The paper is transparent about most of these, but they are assumed rather than derived from a complete UV model. The numeric choices n=6, m_gluino=1e4 GeV, |K|=0.01, and g=200 fix the plotted parameter space.

free parameters (10)
  • n = 6
    Power of the non-renormalizable operator in Eq. (2.1); taken as n=6 'for simplicity' in Section 4, and the cancellation condition and baryon-asymmetry scalings depend on it.
  • c = |c| << 1
    Hubble-induced mass coefficient in Eq. (2.1); assumed negligible so the AD field is approximately massless during inflation.
  • lambda = constrained by Eqs. (4.11)/(4.22) and baryon asymmetry
    Non-renormalizable coupling; must be very small (around 1e-9 or smaller) to satisfy both the massless-field condition and η_B ~ 1e-10.
  • a_M = O(1)
    Coefficient of the A-term in Eq. (2.1); enters ã in Eq. (2.8) and hence the baryon asymmetry.
  • theta_osc = 1.505 < 6θ < 1.637 (gravity), 1.472 < 6θ < 1.670 (delayed)
    Initial AD phase; tuned near π/(2n) to suppress uncorrelated baryon isocurvature (Eqs. 4.3, 4.13).
  • H_I = 3e11–1e12 GeV (gravity), 1e12–4.7e13 GeV modulo Eq. 4.21 typo (delayed)
    Hubble scale during inflation; fixed by CMB normalization, BBN, tensor, and DM constraints.
  • m_gluino = 1e4 GeV in numerical plots
    Gluino mass used in gravitino abundance Eq. (3.8) and in the plotted parameter constraints.
  • M_F = 1e6–1e10 GeV in delayed scenario
    SUSY-breaking scale entering delayed-type Q-ball properties and decay temperature.
  • |K| = 0.01 in numerical plots
    One-loop coefficient in the gravity-mediated potential Eq. (2.9); controls Q-ball radius and decay rate.
  • g_dec = 200
    Effective number of relativistic degrees of freedom at Q-ball decay, used in Eqs. (2.19), (4.6)–(4.8), (4.16)–(4.18).
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption AD-field potential Eq. (2.1) with soft mass, Hubble-induced mass, non-renormalizable term, and A-term
    The entire scenario rests on this SUSY flat-direction potential; invoked in Sec. 2.1.
  • domain assumption Gauge-mediated SUSY-breaking potential Eq. (2.9) with logarithmic corrections and two Q-ball regimes
    Determines gravity-mediated vs delayed-type Q-balls; used throughout Secs. 2.3–4.
  • ad hoc to paper |c| << 1 and |λ| << 1 so the AD field is effectively massless during inflation
    Needed for δφ = H_I/(2π) and for a curvaton-like spectrum; not derived from a specific UV model.
  • domain assumption Inflaton contribution to curvature perturbations is negligible
    Stated at the start of Sec. 2; required for S_dm = -3ζ to be the relevant anti-correlated component.
  • domain assumption Q-ball formation, charge, mass, radius, and decay-rate formulas in Eqs. (2.10)–(2.18)
    Taken from earlier literature; these formulas set α = -2 or α ≈ 0 and determine T_dec.
  • domain assumption Gravitino is the LSP and is thermally produced with abundance Eq. (3.8)
    Identifies the dark-matter candidate and fixes Ω_dm under the assumption that gravitinos are all the DM.
  • domain assumption Dark matter is produced before the AD field decays and decouples, so it is initially unperturbed
    Central to the compensation mechanism; produces S_dm,corr = -3ζ in Eq. (3.5).
  • domain assumption m_3/2 = m_Φ
    Used in evaluating the baryon asymmetry and Q-ball properties; stated below Eq. (2.39).
  • domain assumption Spectral index of the AD curvaton is n_s = 1 - 2ϵ with ϵ ≈ 0.015–0.020
    Used in Sec. 5 to link the scenario to a specific inflationary slow-roll parameter; also exposes the inflaton-negligibility tension at large H_I.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23594 in / 46082 out tokens · 429669 ms · 2026-08-01T08:46:55.482933+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We revisit the Affleck-Dine curvaton scenario in the framework of supersymmetry, taking Q-ball formation into account. In this scenario, a scalar field carrying baryon number, namely the Affleck-Dine field, generates both the curvature perturbations and the baryon asymmetry of the Universe. However, correlated baryon isocurvature perturbations are inevitably generated, resulting in excessively large correlated matter isocurvature perturbations. We propose a mechanism to suppress them, in which the correlated baryon isocurvature perturbations are canceled by anti-correlated dark matter isocurvature perturbations, thereby realizing compensated isocurvature perturbations. We show that the scenario can simultaneously account for the baryon asymmetry and the observed curvature perturbations of the Universe without generating excessively large matter isocurvature perturbations.

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

31 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Affleck and M

    I. Affleck and M. Dine, Nucl. Phys. B249, 361 (1985)

    1985

  2. [2]

    M. Dine, L. Randall, and S. D. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. B458, 291 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9507453

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  3. [3]

    Moroi and T

    T. Moroi and T. Takahashi, Phys. Lett. B522, 215 (2001), [Erratum: Phys.Lett.B 539, 303–303 (2002)], arXiv:hep-ph/0110096

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  4. [4]

    Enqvist and M

    K. Enqvist and M. S. Sloth, Nucl. Phys. B626, 395 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109214

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    D. H. Lyth and D. Wands, Phys. Lett. B524, 5 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0110002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Hamaguchi, M

    K. Hamaguchi, M. Kawasaki, T. Moroi, and F. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D69, 063504 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0308174

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Akramiet al

    Y. Akramiet al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A10 (2020), arXiv:1807.06211 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Ghoshal, A

    A. Ghoshal, A. Naskar, and N. Okada, JHEP01, 082 (2026), arXiv:2410.07694 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    G. P. Holder, K. M. Nollett, and A. van Engelen, Astrophys. J.716, 907 (2010), arXiv:0907.3919 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Gordon and J

    C. Gordon and J. R. Pritchard, Phys. Rev. D80, 063535 (2009), arXiv:0907.5400 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    D. Grin, O. Dore, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D84, 123003 (2011), arXiv:1107.5047 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  12. [12]

    D. Grin, D. Hanson, G. P. Holder, O. Doré, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D89, 023006 (2014), arXiv:1306.4319 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Harigaya, T

    K. Harigaya, T. Hayakawa, M. Kawasaki, and S. Yokoyama, JCAP10, 068 (2014), arXiv:1409.1669 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    S. R. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B262, 263 (1985), [Addendum: Nucl.Phys.B 269, 744 (1986)]

    1985

  15. [15]

    G. R. Dvali, A. Kusenko, and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B417, 99 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9707423

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    Enqvist and J

    K. Enqvist and J. McDonald, Phys. Lett. B425, 309 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9711514

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  17. [17]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D61, 041301 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/9909509 . – 16 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    Kohri, C.-M

    K. Kohri, C.-M. Lin, and T. Matsuda, JCAP06, 009 (2013), arXiv:1303.2750 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  19. [19]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki, and F. Takahashi, JCAP06, 008 (2010), arXiv:1003.1779 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  20. [20]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D112, 123549 (2025), arXiv:2510.19275 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi, and Y. Takaesu, Phys. Rev. D97, 023502 (2018), arXiv:1709.01211 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  22. [22]

    Akramiet al

    Y. Akramiet al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A9 (2020), arXiv:1905.05697 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 4168 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9811437

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  24. [24]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, and N. Sugiyama, Phys. Rev. D62, 023506 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002127

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  25. [25]

    Hannestad, Phys

    S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D70, 043506 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0403291

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

    Hasegawa, N

    T. Hasegawa, N. Hiroshima, K. Kohri, R. S. L. Hansen, T. Tram, and S. Hannestad, JCAP 12, 012 (2019), arXiv:1908.10189 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    P. A. R. Adeet al. (BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151301 (2021), arXiv:2110.00483 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Fujita, M

    T. Fujita, M. Kawasaki, and S. Yokoyama, JCAP09, 015 (2014), arXiv:1404.0951 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    C. T. Byrnes, M. Cortês, and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D113, 063568 (2026), arXiv:2505.09682 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Kawasaki, T

    M. Kawasaki, T. Sekiguchi, and T. Takahashi, JCAP10, 028 (2011), arXiv:1104.5591 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  31. [31]

    S. C. Hotinli, T. Binnie, J. B. Muñoz, B. R. Dinda, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D104, 063536 (2021), arXiv:2106.11979 [astro-ph.CO] . – 17 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021