Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Warm DBI inflation with NMDC friction and thermal damping expands the viable parameter space and keeps field excursions sub-Planckian while matching Planck data.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-14 05:01 UTC pith:LLG2LQ2A

load-bearing objection Clean incremental unification of warm DBI + NMDC that really does enlarge the viable (ns,R) region for monomials, with the main soft spot being hand-fixed spectral coefficients rather than any broken derivation. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.11519 v1 pith:LLG2LQ2A submitted 2026-07-13 gr-qc astro-ph.CO

Dynamics and observational signatures of warm Dirac-Born-Infeld inflation with nonminimal derivative coupling

Run-Qing Zhao , Xiao-Min Zhang , Peng-Cheng Chu , Yun-Cai Feng This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.CO PACS 98.80.Cq
keywords warm inflationDBI inflationnonminimal derivative couplingspectral indextensor-to-scalar ratioη problemPlanck 2018
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 builds a single early-universe model that combines three ingredients at once: a Dirac-Born-Infeld kinetic term, a nonminimal derivative coupling of that kinetic term to the Einstein tensor, and continuous thermal dissipation into radiation. Together these effects slow the inflaton enough that simple power-law potentials (quadratic and quartic), long ruled out in ordinary cold inflation, produce a nearly scale-invariant spectrum and a strongly suppressed tensor-to-scalar ratio. Analytic expressions for the spectral index and the tensor-to-scalar ratio are derived under slow-roll conditions that are far more relaxed than in cold inflation; when those expressions are evaluated against Planck 2018 data, the predictions for 50–60 e-folds sit inside the observational contours and the field never needs to travel super-Planckian distances. The same damping that keeps the model observationally viable also softens the classic η problem, so the construction is offered as both theoretically coherent and compatible with current CMB constraints.

Core claim

When nonminimal derivative coupling, DBI kinetics and warm-dissipation friction act together, they jointly regulate the scalar spectral index, expand the region of parameter space allowed by Planck 2018, suppress the tensor-to-scalar ratio to 10^{-8}–10^{-5}, and keep the inflaton excursion well below the Planck scale for both quadratic and quartic potentials.

What carries the argument

The combined effective friction factor (c_s^{-1} + 3F + r) that appears in the slow-roll equations, the e-fold integral and the analytic formulae for n_s and R; this single factor simultaneously relaxes the η condition and reduces the field range.

Load-bearing premise

The dissipation coefficient is taken to be a pure constant and two order-unity coefficients that enter the spectral-index formula are fixed by hand to representative numerical values rather than derived from a full microphysical calculation.

What would settle it

A future CMB measurement that places the tensor-to-scalar ratio above roughly 10^{-5} (or that finds n_s outside the model’s predicted band for the same sound-speed and friction parameters) would rule out the representative viable points claimed here.

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

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a warm DBI inflation model with nonminimal derivative coupling of the inflaton kinetic term to the Einstein tensor, combining DBI noncanonical kinetics, NMDC gravitational friction, and thermal dissipation. It derives the background equations, slow-roll stability conditions (Eq. (28)), the scalar power spectrum (Eq. (33)), the spectral index (Eq. (34)), and the tensor-to-scalar ratio (Eq. (35)). For power-law potentials with n=2 and n=4 and constant dissipation coefficient, the model is compared to Planck 2018+BK15+BAO data. The central claim is that the interplay of NMDC friction (F) and thermal dissipation (r) modulates ns, expands the viable (cs,F,r) space so that N=50 points lie in the 95% CL region and N=60 points enter the 68% CL region with 10^{-8} ≲ R ≲ 10^{-5}, while the same damping relaxes the η condition and keeps Δφ ≪ Mp.

Significance. If the observational conclusions hold under a self-consistent treatment of the spectral coefficients, the work supplies a concrete, analytically tractable realization of warm noncanonical inflation in modified gravity that simultaneously addresses the η problem and the super-Planckian excursion issue for monomial potentials already ruled out in cold GR inflation. The analytic expressions for ns and R, the classification of dynamical regimes, and the explicit demonstration that F can counteract the reddening induced by r are useful additions to the warm-inflation and NMDC literature. The paper is transparent about the constant-Γ simplification and the representative character of the α coefficients, which aids reproducibility of the figures.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. IV (after Eq. (41)) and Eq. (34): the observational viability claims for Figs. 1–2 rest on hand-fixed spectral coefficients (α1,α2)=(−3.8,−0.2) for n=2 and (−1.9,−0.07) for n=4. These are stated to be “typical” order-unity values from thermal freeze-out, yet they are not derived from the second-order Langevin equation (29) or the freeze-out scale kF along the actual (cs,F,r) trajectories used in the figures. Because the prefactors that multiply α1 and α2 are only O(10^{-4}–10^{-3}), an O(1) shift in the α’s can move ns by several ×10^{-3}, enough to cross the 68% CL boundary or to relocate the critical sound speed c*_s that separates viable from non-viable regions. A short self-consistent evaluation (or a controlled sensitivity scan) of α1,α2 for the representative trajectories is needed before the claimed expansion of parameter space can be regarded as robust.
  2. Sec. III and Eq. (28): the constant-Γ assumption (Γ=Γ0, hence β=c=0) freezes the temperature-dependent slow-roll parameters and simplifies the α coefficients. While the paper notes this as a simplification, the competitive interplay between r and F that is advertised as the main dynamical mechanism is demonstrated only inside this restricted sector. At least a qualitative discussion (or one representative example) of how a mild T- or φ-dependent Γ would shift the location of the critical cs and the (ns,R) loci would strengthen the central claim that the expansion of viable space is a genuine feature of the combined damping rather than an artifact of constant Γ.
minor comments (4)
  1. Fig. 2 caption and surrounding text: the normalization PR=10^{-7} used for the (ns,R) plane is two orders of magnitude larger than the conventional CMB normalization PR~10^{-9} quoted earlier; a brief clarification of the convention (or a rescaling) would avoid confusion when comparing absolute R values.
  2. Eq. (36) and the paragraph that follows: the statement that T>H is easily satisfied for r>10^{-7} is useful, but the corresponding lower bound on the radiation temperature relative to the Hubble scale should be checked against the freeze-out condition kF=H√3(1+Q) for the same parameter sets shown in the figures.
  3. Notation: the same symbol R is used for the tensor-to-scalar ratio and (in the introduction) for the curvature perturbation; a consistent choice (e.g., r or RT/S for the ratio) would improve readability.
  4. Sec. V: the discussion of future non-Gaussianity calculations is appropriate; a short estimate of the expected equilateral fNL scaling with cs in the overdamped regime would make the outlook more concrete.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: analytic ns/R forms are derived independently, then evaluated on free parameters (cs,F,r) against external Planck contours; hand-chosen O(1) αi are representative, not fits that force the viability claim.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III, after Eq. (28) and Eq. (33); also Sec. II.B Cosmological perturbations]
    "Utilizing the field fluctuation relation for warm inflation δφ^{2} = k_F T / 2π^{2} , where the freeze-out momentum is defined by k_F = H √3(1+Q), where Q ≡ r/(L_X + 3F) denotes the effective dissipation strength adapted to our NMDC warm DBI inflationary model [47]. … the scalar power spectrum of the NMDC noncanonical warm inflation model … PR = …"

    The PR formula and the definition of the effective Q that enter the analytic ns and R are taken directly from the authors’ own prior paper [47] rather than re-derived ab initio for the DBI case. While the subsequent specialization to constant-Γ DBI and the observational scan are independent, the load-bearing fluctuation amplitude itself rests on that self-citation.

full rationale

The paper constructs the action (DBI + NMDC + constant-Γ warm dissipation), derives the background EOM, slow-roll conditions (Eqs. 28), freeze-out power spectrum (Eq. 33), ns (Eq. 34) and R (Eq. 35) from first principles plus the standard warm-inflation fluctuation-dissipation relation. These expressions are then specialized to power-law V(φ) and scanned over free parameters cs, F, r, N. The resulting (ns,R) points are compared to external Planck 2018+BK15+BAO contours; pure-GR and pure-cold limits are shown to fall outside, so the claimed expansion of viable space is not forced by construction. The only minor issue is that the O(1) prefactors α1,α2 that enter Eq. (34) are fixed by hand to representative values after Eq. (41) rather than recomputed from the Langevin equation for every trajectory; the paper itself notes they remain O(1) and that moderate variations leave qualitative conclusions unchanged. This is ordinary model-building approximation, not a self-definitional loop or a fit-to-data-then-predict cycle. Self-citation to the authors’ prior NMDC-warm framework [47] supplies the general PR formula but is not load-bearing uniqueness; the DBI specialization and observational comparison stand independently. Score 1 reflects only that minor self-citation plus the representative α choice; the central dynamical claim remains non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard warm-inflation and NMDC formalisms already published by the authors and others, plus a handful of free parameters (sound speed, NMDC strength, dissipation strength, e-fold number, and the two O(1) spectral coefficients) that are scanned or fixed by hand to match Planck data. No new particles or forces are invented; the only ad-hoc modeling choices are the constant-Γ assumption and the specific numerical values assigned to α1,α2.

free parameters (6)
  • cs (sound speed)
    Scanned over [0.1,1]; controls the red tilt and the location of the critical cs* beyond which ns exits the Planck band.
  • F (NMDC strength H^{2}/M^{2})
    Scanned over 0–1000; provides the gravitational-friction term that counteracts thermal reddening of ns.
  • r (thermal dissipation strength Γ/3H)
    Scanned over 0–1000; drives the red tilt and the suppression of R.
  • α1, α2 (spectral-index coefficients)
    Fixed by hand to (-3.8,-0.2) for n=2 and (-1.9,-0.07) for n=4; enter linearly into ns-1 and therefore determine which parameter points are declared viable.
  • N (e-fold number)
    Set to 50 or 60; shifts the (ns,R) points relative to the Planck contours.
  • g* (relativistic degrees of freedom)
    Fixed to 106.75 when converting PR to T/H; affects the absolute scale of R.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Constant dissipation coefficient Γ=Γ0 (hence β=c=0)
    Stated in Sec. III after Eq. (25); discards the field- and temperature-dependent forms known from microphysical warm-inflation calculations.
  • domain assumption Slow-roll conditions ϵ ≪ cs^{-1}+3F+r, η ≪ cs^{-3}+3F, b≪1
    Taken from the authors’ prior stability analysis [47] and applied throughout Sec. III.
  • domain assumption Scalar power spectrum generated by thermal fluctuations with freeze-out momentum kF=H√[3(1+Q)]
    Standard warm-inflation relation used to obtain PR (Eq. (33)).
  • domain assumption Tensor spectrum remains the vacuum GR expression PT≃2(H/2π)^{2}/Mp^{2}
    Assumed after Eq. (34); NMDC corrections to tensors are neglected at leading order.
  • domain assumption Power-law potential V=V0(ϕ/μ)^n with n=2 or 4 and constant warp factor f=Λ^{-4}
    Chosen in Sec. III as the representative UV-DBI potentials to be tested against Planck data.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22238 in / 3492 out tokens · 44895 ms · 2026-07-14T05:01:47.758340+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper investigates a warm Dirac-Born-Infeld (DBI) inflationary model with nonminimal derivative coupling (NMDC) to gravity, where the inflaton kinetic term interacts with the Einstein tensor, thereby improving the effective gravitational friction. This model seamlessly integrates the noncanonical DBI kinetic structure, the NMDC-induced gravitational friction, and thermal dissipation. We formulate the background evolution equations along with the corresponding slow-roll stability conditions, leading to analytic results for the scalar spectral index $n_s$ and the tensor-to-scalar ratio $R$. By applying these results to power-law potentials with $n=2$ and $n=4$, the model parameter space is constrained using the \emph{Planck} 2018 data. The findings indicate that the interaction between NMDC-induced gravitational friction and thermal dissipation effectively modulates $n_s$ and significantly expands the viable parameter space. In the $(n_s,R)$ plane, the predictions for $N=50$ fall within the 95\% confidence-level region, while those for $N=60$ extend into the 68\% confidence-level region and approach the observationally preferred central values. For the representative parameter choices examined, the tensor-to-scalar ratio is notably suppressed, generally within the range $10^{-8}\lesssim R\lesssim10^{-5}$. Moreover, the combined damping mechanism relaxes the slow-roll condition related to $\eta$ and limits the inflaton field excursion, thus addressing the $\eta$ problem without incurring super-Planckian field variations. These results indicate that warm DBI inflation with NMDC offers a theoretically coherent and observationally viable inflationary model, showcasing the complementary effects of thermal dissipation and enhanced gravitational friction in the context of modified gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.11519 by Peng-Cheng Chu, Run-Qing Zhao, Xiao-Min Zhang, Yun-Cai Feng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The spectral index [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The evolution of the tensor-to-scalar ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] 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

72 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    This suggests that the potential indexnhas only a minimal impact on the critical sound speed, while the existence and location ofc ∗ s are primarily influenced byrandF

    A similar set of critical values is acquired for the quartic potential (n=4), but with slightly different numerical values. This suggests that the potential indexnhas only a minimal impact on the critical sound speed, while the existence and location ofc ∗ s are primarily influenced byrandF. ForF=0 andF=10, increasing bothrandc s progressively drives the ...

    2018

  2. [2]

    A. H. Guth, Phys. Rev. D23, 347 (1981)

    1981

  3. [3]

    A. D. Linde, Phys. Lett. B108, 389 (1982)

    1982

  4. [4]

    Albrecht and P

    A. Albrecht and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 1220 (1982)

    1982

  5. [5]

    Bassett, S

    B. Bassett, S. Tsujikawa, and D. Wands, Rev. Mod. Phys.78, 537 (2006)

    2006

  6. [6]

    Akramiet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron

    Y . Akramiet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A10 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Akramiet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron

    Y . Akramiet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A9 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Berera and L

    A. Berera and L. Z. Fang, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 1912 (1995)

    1912

  9. [9]

    Berera, Phys

    A. Berera, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 3218 (1995)

    1995

  10. [10]

    I. G. Moss and C. Xiong, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.11, 023 (2008)

    2008

  11. [11]

    del Campo, R

    S. del Campo, R. Herrera, D. Pav’on, and J. R. Villanueva, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08, 002 (2010)

    2010

  12. [12]

    X. M. Zhang and J. Y . Zhu, Phys. Rev. D87, 043522 (2013)

    2013

  13. [13]

    X. M. Zhang and J. Y . Zhu, Phys. Rev. D90, 123519 (2014)

    2014

  14. [14]

    M. Dine, L. Randall, and S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 398 (1995)

    1995

  15. [15]

    C. F. Kolda and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D60, 023504 (1999)

    1999

  16. [16]

    Berera, Contemp

    A. Berera, Contemp. Phys.47, 33 (2006)

    2006

  17. [17]

    Berera, I

    A. Berera, I. G. Moss, and R. O. Ramos, Rep. Prog. Phys.72, 026901 (2009)

    2009

  18. [18]

    Berera, Nucl

    A. Berera, Nucl. Phys. B585, 666 (2000)

    2000

  19. [19]

    L. M. H. Hall, I. G. Moss, and A. Berera, Phys. Rev. D69, 083525 (2004)

    2004

  20. [20]

    A. N. Taylor and A. Berera, Phys. Rev. D62, 083517 (2000)

    2000

  21. [21]

    Graham and I

    C. Graham and I. G. Moss, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.07, 013 (2009)

    2009

  22. [22]

    A. R. Liddle and D. H. Lyth,Cosmological Inflation and Large- Scale Structure(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2000)

    2000

  23. [23]

    Unnikrishnan, V

    S. Unnikrishnan, V . Sahni and A. Toporensky, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.08, 018 (2012)

    2012

  24. [24]

    Mukhanov and A

    V . Mukhanov and A. Vikman, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02, 004 (2006)

    2006

  25. [25]

    Armendariz-Picon, T

    C. Armendariz-Picon, T. Damour, and V . F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 209 (1999)

    1999

  26. [26]

    Garriga and V

    J. Garriga and V . F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B458, 219 (1999)

    1999

  27. [27]

    R. Gwyn, M. Rummel, and A. Westphal, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.12, 010 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Tzirakis and W

    K. Tzirakis and W. H. Kinney, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.01, 028 (2009)

    2009

  29. [29]

    Franche, R

    P. Franche, R. Gwyn, B. Underwood, and A. Wissanji, Phys. Rev. D81, 123526 (2010)

    2010

  30. [30]

    D. A. Easson and B. A. Powell, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.03, 028 (2013)

    2013

  31. [31]

    R. Bean, D. J. H. Chung, and G. Geshnizjani, Phys. Rev. D78, 023517 (2008)

    2008

  32. [32]

    Battefeld and R

    T. Battefeld and R. Easther, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.03, 020 (2007)

    2007

  33. [33]

    D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D52, 4295 (1995)

    1995

  34. [34]

    Karydas, E

    S. Karydas, E. Papantonopoulos, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D104, 023530 (2021)

    2021

  35. [35]

    Germani and A

    C. Germani and A. Kehagias, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 011302 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Bastero-Gil, A

    M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 151301 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    I. G. Moss and C. Xiong, arXiv:hep-ph/0603266 (2006)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  38. [38]

    Y . Y . Wang, J. Y . Zhu, and X. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 103529 (2019)

    2019

  39. [39]

    C. Q. Shen, X. M. Zhang, Z. P. Peng, H. Liu, X. B. Li, and P. C. Chu, Phys. Rev. D107, 123521 (2023)

    2023

  40. [40]

    Montefalcone, V

    G. Montefalcone, V . Aragam, L. Visinelli, and K. Freese, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.01, 032 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    I. G. Moss and C. Xiong, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.04, 007 (2007)

    2007

  42. [42]

    K. Li, X. M. Zhang, H. Y . Ma, and J. Y . Zhu, Phys. Rev. D98, 123528 (2018)

    2018

  43. [43]

    Z. P. Peng, J. N. Yu, J. Y . Zhu, and X. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 94, 103531 (2016)

    2016

  44. [44]

    Y . Y . Wang, J. Y . Zhu, and X. M. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D97, 063510 (2018)

    2018

  45. [45]

    Eadkhong, P

    T. Eadkhong, P. Dam-O, P. Channuie, and D. Momeni, Nucl. Phys. B994, 116289 (2023)

    2023

  46. [46]

    Dalianis, S

    I. Dalianis, S. Karydas, and E. Papantonopoulos, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.06, 040 (2020)

    2020

  47. [47]

    H. M. Sadjadi and P. Goodarzi, Eur. Phys. J. C75, 513 (2015)

    2015

  48. [48]

    X. M. Zhang, R. Q. Zhao, Z. P. Peng, X. B. Li, Y . C. Feng, P. C. Chu, and Y . H. Xing, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.02, 013 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    N. Yang, Q. Fei, Q. Gao, and Y . G. Gong, Class. Quantum Grav. 33, 205001 (2016)

    2016

  50. [50]

    Bartrum, M

    S. Bartrum, M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, R. Cerezo, R. O. Ramos, and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Lett. B732, 116 (2014)

    2014

  51. [51]

    Y . F. Cai, J. B. Dent, and D. A. Easson, Phys. Rev. D83, 101301(R) (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    J. C. B. S ´anchez, M. Bastero-Gil, A. Berera, and K. Dimopou- los, Phys. Rev. D77, 123527 (2008)

    2008

  53. [53]

    Mishra, S

    H. Mishra, S. Mohanty, and A. Nautiyal, Phys. Lett. B710, 245 (2012)

    2012

  54. [54]

    G. R. Dvali and S. H. H. Tye, Phys. Lett. B450, 72 (1999)

    1999

  55. [55]

    C. P. Burgess, M. Majumdar, D. Nolte, F. Quevedo, G. Rajesh, and R. J. Zhang, J. High Energy Phys.07, 047 (2001)

    2001

  56. [56]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, J. Maldacena, L. McAllister, and S. P. Trivedi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.10, 013 (2003)

    2003

  57. [57]

    B. R. Greene, K. Schalm, and G. Shiu, Nucl. Phys. B584, 480 (2000)

    2000

  58. [58]

    S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru, and J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. D66, 106006 (2002)

    2002

  59. [59]

    Kachru, R

    S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, and S. P. Trivedi, Phys. Rev. D68, 046005 (2003)

    2003

  60. [60]

    Alishahiha, E

    M. Alishahiha, E. Silverstein, and D. Tong, Phys. Rev. D70, 123505 (2004)

    2004

  61. [61]

    LoVerde, A

    M. LoVerde, A. Miller, S. Shandera, and L. Verde, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.04, 014 (2008)

    2008

  62. [62]

    Chen, Phys

    X. Chen, Phys. Rev. D72, 123518 (2005)

    2005

  63. [63]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(Planck Collaboration), Astron. Astrophys. 571, A24 (2014)

    2014

  64. [64]

    Ach ´ucarroet al., arXiv:2203.08128 [astro-ph.CO] (2022)

    A. Ach ´ucarroet al., arXiv:2203.08128 [astro-ph.CO] (2022)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    X. M. Zhang and J. Y . Zhu, Phys. Rev. D91, 063510 (2015)

    2015

  66. [66]

    Yeasmin and A

    S. Yeasmin and A. Deshamukhya, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A38, 2350112 (2023)

    2023

  67. [67]

    Alhallak, N

    M. Alhallak, N. Chamoun, and M. S. Eldaher, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 533 (2023)

    2023

  68. [68]

    Shiravand, M

    M. Shiravand, M. Farhoudi, and P. Goodarzi, Astrophys. J.971, 138 (2024)

    2024

  69. [69]

    Gleiser and R

    M. Gleiser and R. O. Ramos, Phys. Rev. D50, 2441 (1994)

    1994

  70. [70]

    Beutler, C

    F. Beutler, C. Blake, M. Colless, D. H. Jones, L. Staveley- Smith, L. Campbell, Q. Parker, W. Saunders, and F. Watson, 12 Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.416, 3017 (2011)

    2011

  71. [71]

    A. J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W. J. Percival, A. Burden, and M. Manera, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.449, 835 (2015)

    2015

  72. [72]

    Alamet al., Mon

    S. Alamet al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.470, 2617 (2017)

    2017