Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Q-ball perturbations with more details: linear analysis vs lattice

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows linear Q-ball perturbation theory is valid up to ~1% amplitude and that energy extraction requires opposite-charge incoming particles.

desk verdict Careful linear-vs-lattice study of Q-ball perturbations; the δr bound is plausible but needs the missing numerical details before it is fully established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.13885 v1 pith:FFDEZC3S submitted 2024-12-18 hep-ph

Aleksandr Azatov , Quoc Trung Ho , Mohamed Mahdi Khalil This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords Q-ballnon-topologicalsolitonlinearperturbationtheorylatticesimulationsolitosynthesisenergyextractionconservedcurrentFLS
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 asks how reliably linear perturbation theory describes scattering of particles and antiparticles off non-rotating Q-balls, and answers by confronting the linearized wave equations with full lattice simulations. The authors find that the linear analysis stays quantitatively valid for perturbation amplitudes up to $\delta r \lesssim 10^{-2}$, beyond which nonlinear effects deform the Q-ball and the conserved-current description breaks down. The central mechanical insight is that energy can be extracted from a positively charged Q-ball only when the incoming quantum has the opposite charge: the reaction $Q + \phi^\dagger \to (Q-2) + \phi$ lowers the soliton's energy, and the wave-scattering amplification factor matches the difference in Q-ball self-energy $E(Q) - E(Q-2)$. The same machinery is extended for the first time to the two-field Friedberg-Lee-Sirlin model, where a neutral $\chi$ mode mixes with the charged $\eta_\pm$ modes and a neutral incoming quantum can either release or absorb energy depending on its frequency.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conserved particle-number current $J_\eta = 2\,\mathrm{Im}\left(\eta_+^*\nabla\eta_+ - \eta_-^*\nabla\eta_-\right)$ (extended to $J_\eta = 2\,\mathrm{Im}(\eta_\chi\nabla\eta_\chi^* + \eta_+\nabla\eta_+^* - \eta_-\nabla\eta_-^*)$ in the two-field model), whose conservation makes the scattering matrix $S$ unitary; because the linearized equations are real, $S$ is also symmetric, and the transformation $\omega \to -\omega$ swaps the $\eta_+$ and $\eta_-$ modes. These three properties fix the transition probabilities up to a few real parameters and let the paper deduce the selection rule that only an opposite-charge incoming mode can reduce the Q-ball's energy. The amplification factors $Z_E$ and $Z_Q$ are then defined from the asymptotic fluxes, and the paper shows $Z_E$ for the antiparticle channel equals the ratio $|A^{\mathrm{out}}_+|^2 (E(Q)-E(Q-2))/|\omega_-|$, up to subleading terms suppressed by $d^2 E/dQ^2$.

What would settle it

Repeat the one-field scattering for $\delta r = 10^{-2}$ at two grid spacings that differ by a factor of two and with the absorbing boundary moved twice as far away; if the extracted $Z_E$ and $Z_Q$ change by more than the tolerance that currently separates the linear and lattice curves, the claimed validity domain is a numerical artifact rather than a statement about the continuum theory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the flux-based amplification factors $Z_E$ and $Z_Q$ computed from the linearized perturbation equations agree with full nonlinear lattice simulations once the perturbation size is below $\delta r \lesssim 10^{-2}$, where $\delta r$ is the rescaled amplitude of the incoming wave packet relative to the Q-ball field value. For such small perturbations the conserved current $J_\eta$ and the symmetric unitary $S$-matrix relating incoming and outgoing mode amplitudes provide an exact description of charge and energy exchange. The paper also establishes, by matching the amplification factor to the Q-ball self-energy difference, that energy extraction requires an incoming antiparticle mode $\eta_-$ for a positive-charge Q-ball, and that in the two-field FLS model all three modes ($\eta_+$, $\eta_-$, $\eta_\chi$) mix, so energy exchange proceeds through reactions with three distinct energies.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the lattice simulations faithfully reproduce the continuum nonlinear dynamics: the absorbing boundary must not contaminate the measured fluxes, the fourth-order finite-difference and Runge-Kutta discretization must be converged, and the initial Q-ball profile must be accurate enough that its spurious radiation is negligible compared with the signals it contaminates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For perturbation sizes $\delta r \lesssim 10^{-2}$, energy and charge exchange between a Q-ball and surrounding plasma can be computed reliably from linear scattering theory, which directly feeds solitosynthesis rate estimates.
  • At early-universe temperatures roughly an order of magnitude below the mass scale $\mu$, the linear regime is realized; for non-relativistic plasma particles the dominant processes are elastic scattering or a reduction of the Q-ball charge.
  • The selection rule means a positively charged Q-ball can lose energy and charge only through collisions with antiparticles $\phi^\dagger$; same-sign particles can only add energy and charge.
  • In the FLS two-field model, a neutral $\chi$ quantum can either release or absorb energy depending on its frequency, and the three-mode structure opens the channel $Q + \chi \to (Q-1) + \phi$ alongside the charged channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial: the $\delta r \lesssim 10^{-2}$ validity threshold is established for the specific one-field potential with $g=1/3$ and spherical waves; the same threshold may shift for thin-walled Q-balls or for high angular momentum, a testable extension of the paper's lattice comparison.
  • Editorial: the exactness of the selection rule (energy extraction only from opposite-charge quanta) is a linear-order statement; at nonlinear amplitudes $\delta r > 10^{-2}$ the paper's own simulations show the Q-ball deforms and oscillates, so the rule should not be extrapolated to strong scattering.
  • Editorial: the conserved-current argument implies an exact all-order (in $\omega$ but linear in amplitude) statement about elastic scattering of half-propagating modes; since $|A^{\mathrm{in}}_+|^2 = |A^{\mathrm{out}}_+|^2$, a Q-ball that is classically forbidden to lose charge at low energies will show this behavior sharply at the threshold, which could be probed in a single-mode wave-packet expe
  • Editorial: the FLS three-mode mixing suggests a mediator-catalyzed process in which a neutral $\chi$ background can convert a same-sign charged quantum into an opposite-sign one, effectively flipping the sign of energy exchange; whether this enhances or suppresses net charge accretion in a plasma is not addressed by the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the linear response of non-rotating Q-balls in a one-complex-field model and in an FLS two-field model. It derives a conserved particle-number current, encodes the scattering in a symmetric unitary S-matrix, and obtains charge/energy amplification factors for S-wave and higher partial waves. The authors compare linear predictions with full nonlinear lattice simulations and conclude that linear analysis remains valid for perturbations δr ≲ 10^-2, with applications to solitosynthesis in the early universe. The FLS analysis, including a three-mode conserved current and energy extraction channels, is presented as new.

Significance. The analytic machinery—conserved current, S-matrix symmetries, and the flux definitions—is derived cleanly and contains no free parameters; the energy-balance consistency check in Eqs. (24)–(26) is a useful independent cross-check, and the lattice comparison is a meaningful test of the linear approximation. If the numerical evidence is supplied, the paper would establish a practical validity criterion for solitosynthesis calculations and provide the first linear/lattice treatment of FLS Q-ball perturbation scattering. The early-universe estimate in Section 2.3 is a suggestive but tentative application.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.2–2.3, Fig. 6] The quantitative threshold δr ≲ 10^-2 is the paper's headline validity claim and rests entirely on the lattice-vs-linear comparison, yet no lattice parameters are reported: no grid spacing Δx, time step Δt, boundary radius, absorbing-boundary specification, or convergence test. The manuscript itself lists "discretisation of time and space leading to the generic systematic error" and the requirement that the initial Q-ball profile be exact, otherwise radiation becomes a background. With a 4th-order finite-difference scheme, O(Δx^4) errors and spurious Q-ball radiation could mimic the physical nonlinear corrections at δr ~ 10^-2; therefore the claim is not established until the lattice data are shown to converge and to be background-free. The same numerical-detail deficit applies to the two-field comparison in Fig. 20.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (62)] The energy-amplification formula for the two-field model is internally inconsistent in its mode labels. The text assumes an initial η− state, but the displayed definitions set A_in_+ = 1 and A_in_- = 0, which describe an incoming η+ state. With the paper's flux definition in Eq. (21), an η− initial state gives 1+Z_Q = |A_out_-|^2 − |A_out_+|^2 (up to the absolute value), not |A_out_+|^2 − |A_out_-|^2. The sign and mode content of Eq. (62), and hence the derived two-field energy-extraction selection rule, need to be corrected.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 2] There is a typo "various vaious" in the opening of Section 2; please correct it.
  2. [Figs. 8, 15–20] The η− mode is rendered as a square or "□" symbol in several figures, presumably due to a missing glyph; please use the same notation as in the text.
  3. [Appendix C.2] The two-field perturbation is specified by δ_Φ = 5×10^-4 and σ_Φ = 10, but it is not mapped to the δr variable defined in Eq. (43), so the reader cannot compare the two-field lattice agreement with the one-field threshold.
  4. [Sec. 2.3, Eqs. (44)–(45)] The identification of the wavepacket coherence length with the inverse plasma temperature is an assumption that should be stated explicitly as a modeling choice, with a short justification or a caveat about its range of validity.
  5. [Appendix A, Eq. (77)] Equation (77) contains a repeated identical expression on both sides of the equality; the intended limit statement should be written out.
  6. [Abstract] The phrase "as well discussion of the FLS Q-balls" should read "as well as a discussion of the FLS Q-balls".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the linear predictions, lattice validations, and kinematic energy-balance checks are independent computations with no fitted parameters passed between them.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The linear perturbation results follow from solving the fixed Q-ball profile equations (Eqs. (10) and (53)) with no free parameters; the charge and energy amplification factors in Eq. (21) are defined directly from asymptotic scattering amplitudes. The lattice comparisons in Figs. 6 and 20 compute the same flux ratios from independent nonlinear evolution with the initial conditions of Eqs. (36)-(37), using no fitted values taken from the linear calculation. The kinematic energy-extraction estimate in Eq. (23) is explicitly presented as a consistency check: it combines the linear transition probability |Aout_+|^2 with the Q-ball binding-energy difference E(Q)-E(Q-2), and Eqs. (24)-(26) show that this reduces to the flux-based ZE through the standard identity dE/dQ = omega_Q, up to higher-derivative corrections. This is a derived consistency relation, not an input used to construct the linear result. The selection rule that energy extraction from a positive-charge Q-ball requires an incoming antiparticle follows from charge conservation together with the monotonicity of E(Q), and is corroborated by the mode-energy ordering of Eq. (28); it is not definitionally identical to the amplification factors being predicted. The FLS three-mode analysis is an extension obtained by linearizing the two-field equations of motion and defining the conserved current of Eq. (54); no uniqueness theorem or author-imported ansatz is used to force the result. The cited prior works [23,24] are by other authors and serve only as starting points, not as load-bearing self-citations. The paper's quantitative claim that linear analysis remains valid up to delta_r ≲ 10^-2 rests on lattice comparisons whose grid spacing, time step, and convergence behavior are not reported; this is a missing-support or correctness concern, not circularity, because the lattice computation is an independent check rather than a fitted input. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

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

None of the central claims depend on fitted free parameters. The model couplings, g=1/3 for the one-field model and gχΦ=4, gχ=1, gΦ=0.04, vχ=1, mΦ=0 for the FLS model, are fixed demonstration choices, not extracted by fitting to the target results. The main load-bearing assumptions are the perturbative ansatz and the faithfulness of the lattice discretization, the latter lacking convergence tests. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Q-ball profile is the spherically symmetric classical solution satisfying Eq. (5) with boundary conditions ϕ'Q(0)=0 and ϕQ(∞)=0.
    Accepted construction from the Coleman and Friedberg-Lee-Sirlin literature, used throughout Sections 2 and 3.
  • domain assumption Perturbations admit the two-frequency ansatz Φ1 = η+ e^{-iω+ t} + η- e^{-iω- t}, with ω± = ωQ ± ω, and bound modes are excluded except where stated.
    Introduced in Eq. (9); exceptions for zero modes and charge modes are noted. This ansatz defines the scattering problem.
  • standard math The S-matrix is unitary and symmetric due to current conservation and reality of the linear operator O(r).
    Proved in Appendix A from Eqs. (66)-(74); underlies the selection rules (16), (58), and (75)-(76).
  • domain assumption Lattice discretization with 4th-order finite differences and RK4 converges to the continuum solution, and absorbing boundaries do not contaminate flux measurements.
    Sections 2.2 and C.2; no convergence tests or grid parameters are reported, making this a load-bearing numerical assumption.
  • domain assumption Classical wavepacket scattering amplitudes can be interpreted as quantum transition probabilities for single particles, with reactions listed in Eq. (22).
    Section 2, paragraph after Eq. (22); used to translate amplification factors into early-universe selection rules. It is heuristic because quantum effects are explicitly absent.
  • ad hoc to paper Early-universe plasma quanta can be modeled as coherent wavepackets of charge Q=1 and size of order inverse temperature, as used in Eqs. (44)-(45).
    Introduced in Section 2.3 to convert the classical amplitude bound into a temperature condition; plausible but not derived.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Q-ball perturbations with more details: linear analysis vs lattice." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFDEZC3S

@misc{pith2026241213885,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Q-ball perturbations with more details: linear analysis vs lattice},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFDEZC3S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.13885}
}
read the original abstract

We analyze in detail the interactions between non-topological soliton (Q-ball) and its perturbations. We extend the previous literature by carefully identifying the domain of applicability of linear analysis as well discussion of the FLS Q-balls. Applications to the early universe physics are briefly commented.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.13885 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Q-ball profiles with varying internal frequency in D = 3 spatial dimension, with self-coupling g = 1/3. The total charge QQ and energy EQ are reported to verify the stability of the Q-ball against decay into free particles, EQ < QQmΦ. Let us proceed to the perturbations of the Q-ball Φ = ΦQ + Φ1, then it is easy to show that the perturbation Φ1 [25] satisfies the equations □Φ1 + U(r)Φ1 + W(r)Φ∗ 1 e −2iωQt = 0, (… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The relative amplification factors of incoming mode η+ in terms of energy (top figure) and charge (bottom figure) of various Q-ball profiles shown at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The kinematic and linear relative energy amplifications for an incoming − mode (top figure) and their difference (bottom figure), here Z kin E ≡ Z˜ E and Z lin E is obtained using linear perturbation regime. It is obvious that the shape of Z kin E − Z lin E matches the shape of Z kin E for each value of ωQ, as predicted by Eq. (26). On the wave-equation side, the energy extraction can be seen from the following. Let… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (17 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reflection probabilities for the ± modes |Aout ± /Ain ±| 2 , with g = 1/3 and ωQ = 0.75. There is always only one mode (either + or − in incoming state). early universe and we are looking at its evolution due to the interactions with the surrounding plasma. If the plas…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The 3D plot and its corresponding heatmap to visualize the solution |Φ| of a Q￾ball scattering with spherical waves. Here, we artificially put large wave packet to visualize the propagation of the incoming and outgoing waves. The scattering is very non-linear, which si…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of amplification factors between the linear regime and full lattice simulation results. Here RQ is defined as a radius where the field becomes half of the value at the center. Recall that the height of the Q-ball profile with given parameters is O(1), hence …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The profiles of FLS solitons (ϕQ: solid line, χQ: dashed line) with various internal frequencies ωQ, with reported total charge QQ and total energy EQ. All these profiles pass the sanity check of stability under decaying into free particles, i.e EQ < QQ q m2 Φ + gχΦv 2…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Ratios of the expansion coefficents, with incoming mode η+ (top plot) and ηχ (bottom plot). Once A in,out ±,χ are known, it is straightforward to compute the amplification factors for energy and charge, see numerical results on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Energy and charge amplification factors with incoming mode η+. As expected from the previous discussion the energy is amplified with ω < 0 and attenuated with ω > 0, meanwhile the charge of incoming mode is always attenuated. Typically, the 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Energy amplification factors with incoming mode ηχ. On the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Constraints on (vχ, ω) on different propagating modes as a “color mixer” plot. The first column corresponds to mΦ = 0 with varying gχ, while the second column corresponds to mΦ = 0.5 with varying ωQ. The gray shaded region indicates parameter space where a Q-ball prof…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The saturation of the total cross section due to the scattering of an incoming particle (− mode) against a Q-ball of frequency ωQ = 0.75 in the two channels σ(ϕ → ϕ) = σ−+, σ(ϕ → ϕ ∗ ) = σ−−. Given the corresponding effective size of this Q-ball RQ ≈ 3.3, the cross se…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The total cross sections of incoming − mode with energy E scattering off a Q-ball of frequency ωQ = 0.75. The red line represents the result for elastic channel (with outgoing mode −), while the blue line represents the inelastic one. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Same plot as of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Energy and charge amplification factors as a function of incoming mode frequency with positively charged incoming mode. The amplification/attenuation effects tends to be stronger with negative ω compared to the positive one. The Z F Q is no longer symmetric under ω → …
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Energy amplification factors as a function of incoming mode frequency with neutral incoming mode. We observe the symmetry pattern under ω → −ω in this case, which is a consequence of a property of the S-matrix discussed in previous appendix. Since there is no net char…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Comparison between amplification factors of linear regime (solid lines) with lattice results (dashed lines) on various Q-balls, with different colors corresponding to different ωQ. Here we have kept the perturbation size fixed with σ Φ r = 10 and δΦ = 5 × 10−4 . For t…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Oscillon Floquet Modes and the Operators that Excite Them

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Relativistic Floquet modes of the oscillon are expressed in elementary functions, and their quantum creation/annihilation operators are shown to satisfy the oscillator algebra at the computed order.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. R. Coleman Phys. Rev. D15 (1977) 2929–2936. [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D16,1248(1977)]. 2

    work page 1977

  2. [2]

    Friedberg, T

    R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, and A. Sirlin Nucl. Phys. B115 (1976) 32–47. 2, 13

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    Friedberg, T

    R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, and A. Sirlin Nucl. Phys. B115 (1976) 1–31. 2, 13

    work page 1976

  4. [4]

    Friedberg, T

    R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee, and A. Sirlin Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 2739–2761. 2, 7, 13

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    T. D. Lee and Y. Pang Phys. Rept. 221 (1992) 251–350. 2, 7, 13

    work page 1992

  6. [6]

    E. Y. Nugaev and A. V. Shkerin J. Exp. Theor. Phys.130 (2020), no. 2 301–320, [ arXiv:1905.05146]. 2

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Kusenko and M

    A. Kusenko and M. E. Shaposhnikov Phys. Lett. B418 (1998) 46–54, [ hep-ph/9709492]. 2

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Kusenko Phys

    A. Kusenko Phys. Lett. B404 (1997) 285, [ hep-th/9704073]. 2

    arXiv 1997

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Enqvist and J

    K. Enqvist and J. McDonald Phys. Lett. B440 (1998) 59–65, [ hep-ph/9807269]. 2

    1998 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Kusenko and P

    A. Kusenko and P. J. Steinhardt Phys. Rev. Lett.87 (2001) 141301, [ astro-ph/0106008]. 2

    2001 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Roszkowski and O

    L. Roszkowski and O. Seto Phys. Rev. Lett.98 (2007) 161304, [ hep-ph/0608013]. 2

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    I. M. Shoemaker and A. Kusenko Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 075021, [ arXiv:0909.3334]. 2

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki Phys. Rev. D84 (2011) 123528, [ arXiv:1107.0403]. 2

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kasuya, M

    S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki, and M. Yamada Phys. Lett. B726 (2013) 1–7, [ arXiv:1211.4743]. 2

    2013 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kawasaki and H

    M. Kawasaki and H. Nakatsuka JCAP 04 (2020) 017, [ arXiv:1912.06993]. 2

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Pont´ on, Y

    E. Pont´ on, Y. Bai, and B. Jain JHEP 09 (2019) 011, [ arXiv:1906.10739]. 2, 13

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Krylov, A

    E. Krylov, A. Levin, and V. Rubakov Phys. Rev. D87 (2013), no. 8 083528, [ arXiv:1301.0354]. 2, 13

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bishara, G

    F. Bishara, G. Johnson, O. Lennon, and J. March-Russell JHEP 11 (2017) 179, [ arXiv:1708.04620]. 2

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. A. Frieman, G. B. Gelmini, M. Gleiser, and E. W. Kolb Phys. Rev. Lett.60 (1988) 2101. 2

    1988

  12. [20]

    Griest, E

    K. Griest, E. W. Kolb, and A. Massarotti Phys. Rev. D40 (1989) 3529. 2

    1989

  13. [21]

    Griest and D

    K. Griest and D. Seckel Phys. Rev. D43 (1991) 3191–3203. 2

    1991

  14. [22]

    Postma Phys

    M. Postma Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 085035, [ hep-ph/0110199]. 2

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P. M. Saffin, Q.-X. Xie, and S.-Y. Zhou Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023), no. 11 111601, [ arXiv:2212.03269]. 2, 3, 5, 6, 19

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cardoso, R

    V. Cardoso, R. Vicente, and Z. Zhong Phys. Rev. Lett.131 (2023), no. 11 111602, [ arXiv:2307.13734]. 2, 3, 5, 6, 19

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. N. Smolyakov Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 4 045011, [ arXiv:1711.05730]. 4

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Ciurla, P

    D. Ciurla, P. Dorey, T. Roma´ nczukiewicz, and Y. Shnir arXiv:2405.06591. 4

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. N. Smolyakov Phys. Rev. D100 (2019), no. 4 045002, [ arXiv:1906.02117]. 4

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Heeck, A

    J. Heeck, A. Rajaraman, R. Riley, and C. B. Verhaaren Phys. Rev. D103 (2021), no. 4 045008, [arXiv:2009.08462]. 7

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Y. Bai, S. Lu, and N. Orlofsky JHEP 10 (2022) 181, [ arXiv:2208.12290]. 13

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Jiang, F

    S. Jiang, F. P. Huang, and P. Ko JHEP 07 (2024) 053, [ arXiv:2404.16509]. 13

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lennon arXiv:2112.14263

    O. Lennon arXiv:2112.14263. 13

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bishara and O

    F. Bishara and O. Lennon JHEP 10 (2022) 079, [ arXiv:2110.02236]. 13

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. Bai, J. Berger, M. Korwar, and N. Orlofsky JHEP 10 (2021) 147, [ arXiv:2106.12589]. 13

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Bai and J

    Y. Bai and J. Berger JHEP 05 (2020) 160, [ arXiv:1912.02813]. 13

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Zhang, F.-M

    G.-D. Zhang, F.-M. Chang, P. M. Saffin, Q.-X. Xie, and S.-Y. Zhou arXiv:2402.03193. 22, 23 31

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.