Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Dressed D-strings with Instability and Transverse Rotation: The Open String Pair Production

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Open string pairs are produced by two rotating D-strings only when their angular frequencies are commensurate and the tachyonic fields are quenched.

desk verdict A carefully built boundary-state computation whose central claim—the rational frequency condition and the resulting pair-production rate—rests on an underived reduction that is not justified as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12326 v2 pith:TZ6BTLVA submitted 2025-05-18 hep-th

Hamidreza Daniali , Davoud Kamani This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 81T30 PACS 11.25.-w11.25.Wx98.62.Dm
keywords DressedD-stringSchwingereffectOpenstringpairproductionTransverserotationBraneinstabilityBoundarystateKalb-RamondbackgroundCompactification
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 studies the string-theory analogue of the Schwinger effect for two parallel, one-dimensional D-branes (D-strings) that are dressed with electric and tachyonic fields, rotate transversely, and live in a partially compact spacetime with a Kalb-Ramond background. It claims that open string pairs are produced from the vacuum between the branes exactly when the tachyonic fields are switched off and the two angular frequencies satisfy $\omega_1/\omega_2=(2n_1\pm1)/(2n_2\pm1)$ for integers $n_1,n_2$. In that case the production rate is given by an explicit residue formula. The paper also claims that compactifying some directions on a torus can enhance the rate, and that the rate falls with separation in non-compact directions but grows with separation in compact directions. A sympathetic reader would care because it extends the familiar electric-field pair creation to dynamical, rotating brane systems and gives parametric control over the rate.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the boundary-state description of a dressed, rotating D-string: the interaction amplitude is computed in the closed-string channel as the overlap of two boundary states. The decisive algebraic step is rewriting the mode-dependent determinant as $\prod_n (1-\Gamma q^{2n})(1-\Gamma' q^{2n})$ with $\Gamma\Gamma'=1$, which forces $\cos[2\nu(t)]>1$ and makes $\nu(t)=i\tilde\nu(t)$ pure imaginary. After a Jacobi transformation to the open-string channel, the $\Theta_1$ function supplies sine factors whose zeros along the positive $T$-axis are the simple poles $T_k=k\pi/\tilde\nu(t)$; summing their residues gives the pair production rate via the Schwinger formula.

What would settle it

Compute the full amplitude (3) in the quenched limit $U'_1,U'_2\to0$ with $\omega_1/\omega_2$ satisfying Eq. (5) and compare it with the reduced amplitude (6): the prefactor $\sqrt{U'_1U'_2}$ in (3) vanishes in that limit, while (6) starts with $\sqrt{(1-E_1\cos\omega_1t)(1-E_2\cos\omega_2t)}$, so the paper must exhibit the cancellation that produces a finite nonzero amplitude; until that is shown, the rate (14) is not justified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is an if-and-only-if condition for open string pair creation in a system of two dressed rotating D1-branes in bosonic string theory. Starting from the closed-string boundary-state amplitude (Eq. (3)), the paper argues that pair production is possible only when the tachyonic fields are quenched and the frequency ratio obeys Eq. (5), $\omega_1/\omega_2=(2n_1\pm1)/(2n_2\pm1)$, with $K=\omega_1/\omega_2\neq1$ because of the $|\sin\Omega t|$ prefactor. Under these conditions the amplitude is reduced to Eq. (6), transformed to the open-string channel, and its imaginary part yields the production rate Eq. (14): $W(t)$ is a sum over residues at poles $T_k=k\pi/\tilde\nu(t)$ and depends on the electric fields $E_1,E_2$, the compactification radii, the effective mass $M^2_{\rm eff}$, and the compact and non-compact separations. The paper further shows that the compactified rate exceeds the non-compact one precisely when inequality (17) holds and that negligible electric fields give only an infinitesimal rate.

Load-bearing premise

The rate formula rests on an unproved reduction: after the tachyonic fields are switched off, the full interaction amplitude is replaced by a simplified one, and if that replacement is not the true limiting amplitude the production rate does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Pair production is forbidden whenever the tachyonic field is active; the tachyon must be quenched first.
  • The frequencies must obey $\omega_1/\omega_2=(2n_1\pm1)/(2n_2\pm1)$; $K>0$ means the D-strings rotate in the same sense, $K<0$ in opposite senses, and $K=1$ is excluded.
  • When these conditions hold, the rate is the explicit residue sum Eq. (14), decreasing with non-compact separation $Y_N$ and increasing with compact separation $Y_C$ and spacetime dimension.
  • Compactification enhances the rate above the non-compact value exactly when inequality (17) is satisfied; otherwise it does not.
  • In the limit of negligible electric fields the rate becomes infinitesimal, recovering the behavior of bare static D-strings.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The rational ratio condition is effectively a resonance condition: only commensurate rotations return the two D-strings to the same relative orientation often enough for the open-string channel to accumulate an imaginary part, whereas incommensurate rotation would wash the interaction out.
  • If the reduced amplitude is the correct quenched limit, the rate formula makes pair production tunable: varying a compactification radius across inequality (17) should switch the enhancement on or off, and increasing the compact separation $Y_C$ lowers the effective mass and raises the rate.
  • The conclusion that tachyonic fields prevent production is tied to the constant tachyon matrix used here; a time-dependent tachyon profile might evade the obstruction and deserves a separate calculation.
  • The same pole-residue machinery could be applied to rotating higher-dimensional branes carrying magnetic fluxes, potentially giving an enhanced rate analogous to the magnetic enhancement known for static branes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies open-string pair production between two parallel, rotating, electrically dressed and tachyonic D1-branes in a constant Kalb-Ramond background on a partially compact spacetime. Using boundary-state techniques, it obtains an interaction amplitude (3), then asserts that after quenching the tachyon and imposing the rational frequency ratio (5) the amplitude reduces to Eq. (6), from which the pair-production rate (14) is derived. The paper also discusses compactification enhancement and several special limits.

Significance. If the central derivation were correct, the result would be a nontrivial extension of Schwinger pair production to time-dependent rotating brane systems, with a resonance condition and compactification-enhanced rates; this would be of interest to the string pair-production community. The paper's boundary-state computation in the appendix is detailed and the theta-function technology is appropriate. However, the central assertions rest on an underived and apparently discontinuous reduction, an unproved 'if and only if' frequency condition, and an internal inconsistency in the pole locations, so the significance cannot be assessed until these issues are resolved.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (3) to Eq. (6)] The reduction from the full amplitude (3) to the reduced amplitude (6) is asserted through 'the interaction amplitude must reduce to' without an actual limiting procedure. In (3) the prefactor contains sqrt(U'_1 U'_2), which vanishes in the quench limit U'->0, whereas (6) replaces it with sqrt((1 - E1 cos omega1 t)(1 - E2 cos omega2 t)); the zero-mode boundary states in (A.10) carry 1/sqrt(U') factors and a Gaussian p0 integral with exponent proportional to 1/U', so a nontrivial cancellation is required that is never displayed. Because Eq. (14) is computed from (6), this gap invalidates the central rate formula as it stands.
  2. [Sec. 2, Eq. (5)] The 'if and only if' rational-frequency condition is introduced with the phrase 'through the parameter analysis,' but no parameter analysis is shown. The only equation following the determinant-factorization discussion, Eq. (7), does not contain the frequencies omega1 and omega2 at all, so the necessity of omega1/omega2 = (2n1 +/- 1)/(2n2 +/- 1) is not established. This is load-bearing because the pair-production claim is the paper's main result.
  3. [Sec. 3, Eq. (11) and pole location] The text states that the simple poles are at T_k = k pi / nu(tilde)(t), but the Theta1 function in Eq. (11) has argument nu(tilde)(t) T / pi^2, whose zeros occur at T = k pi^2 / nu(tilde)(t). The factor of pi between the quoted pole location and the actual zero location propagates into the exponential prefactors of the rate (14); unless a different Theta1 convention is intended, this is an error in the residue evaluation.
  4. [Footnote 3 and Sec. 2] The exclusion of K = 1 leaves the static case omega1 = omega2 = 0 outside the classification, because the ratio omega1/omega2 is then undefined; the paper supplies no limiting procedure that recovers the standard static pair-production result. Since static parallel D-branes are the configuration in which open-string pair production is best established, this omission weakens the claim that Eq. (5) describes all pair-producing configurations.
  5. [Sec. 3, Eq. (8)] After Eq. (8) the amplitude is stated to be real because Theta1 is pure imaginary, but the following paragraph argues that a 'sine-factor' in Theta1 produces imaginary terms and hence the imaginary part of the amplitude. These two statements are in tension; the mechanism by which the amplitude acquires an imaginary part should be explained more carefully.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (3) and Sec. 3, Eq. (8)] The worldsheet exponent changes from (d-2)T/6 in Eq. (3) to (d-2)T/12 in Eq. (8) without explanation; please confirm the normalization and modular transformation used.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (12)] The term written as '- d-2/6 pi^2' is ambiguous; it should be typeset as -(d-2)pi^2/6 or whatever expression is intended.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (17)] The inequality in Eq. (17) appears dimensionally inconsistent if R1 and R_{ic} carry length dimensions, and the 'if and only if' claim is stronger than what a leading-order theta-function comparison supports.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eq. (18)] The sum over k appears to have collapsed to a single term without comment; if the leading k = 1 term is intended, this should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Throughout] The notation {iin}, {iic}, d_n, and d_c is introduced only implicitly; the sets of non-compact and compact transverse directions should be defined explicitly before Eq. (3).

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The frequency condition and quenched-tachyon reduction are imposed into Eq. (6), so the predicted pair-production rate (14) is built into the reduced amplitude rather than derived from Eq. (3).

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2, Eq. (5)]
    "For the dynamical system, through the parameter analysis, we receive a pair creator configuration in which ω1/ω2 = (2n1 ± 1)/(2n2 ± 1) ≡ K, n1, n2 ∈ Z. This demonstrates that the ratio ω1/ω2 must be rational. Hence, the pair production occurs if and only if the frequencies of the D-strings obey Eq. (5)."

    The displayed factorization condition associated with ΓΓ′ = 1 is Eq. (7), which is an inequality involving E1 cos ω1t − E2 cos ω2t and contains no ratio ω1/ω2. No derivation connects the determinant factorization to the rational-frequency condition Eq. (5). The 'parameter analysis' is not shown, so Eq. (5) is an imposed condition that makes the reduction work, and the subsequent 'if and only if' claim restates that input as a predicted outcome.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3, Eq. (6)]
    "Given the specified conditions in Sec. 2, the interaction amplitude must reduce to ... As it was mentioned, the determinant factor can be expressed as 1 − (Γ + Γ′)q2n + q4n."

    Equation (6) is introduced as what the full amplitude 'must reduce to,' but the reduction is never performed. The full amplitude (3) has prefactor √(U′1U′2), which vanishes for quenched tachyons, while Eq. (6) replaces it with √((1−E1 cos ω1t)(1−E2 cos ω2t)) and suppresses the p0 Gaussian integral. The reduced amplitude is constructed so that the determinant factorizes with ΓΓ′ = 1, which is exactly what produces the imaginary part and hence the rate (14). Thus the predicted rate is a consequence of the posited reduced amplitude, not of the boundary-state amplitude (3).

full rationale

The boundary-state construction in Appendix A is self-contained, and the later residue calculation and compactification analysis are internally consistent once Eq. (6) is granted. No load-bearing step reduces to self-citation. The circularity is concentrated in the passage from the full amplitude (3) to the reduced amplitude (6): Eq. (5) is asserted 'through the parameter analysis' without derivation, and Eq. (6) is declared to be what the amplitude 'must reduce to' under those conditions, but the zero-mode prefactor changes discontinuously and the determinant factorization ΓΓ′ = 1 is imposed rather than derived. Since the imaginary part and the pair-production rate (14) follow from this imposed factorization, the central 'prediction' — rational frequencies plus quenched tachyon — is partly an input to the constructed reduced amplitude. Score 6 reflects that the central claim reduces by construction to the assumed reduction, while the amplitude machinery preceding it is independent.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its parameters are the configuration fields (electric, tachyon, frequencies) and the geometric data (radii, separations). The tachyon quenching and the rational frequency condition are the most ad hoc elements, since they are imposed without a fully shown derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • Tachyonic field U' = 0 (quenched)
    The tachyon matrix component U' is set to zero by hand to allow pair production. The limit U'→0 from Eq. (3) to Eq. (6) is not derived and appears discontinuous.
  • Electric fields E1, E2 = unspecified
    The U(1) electric field strengths on the two D-strings are free parameters of the configuration; they enter the rate and at least one must be nonzero for pair production.
  • Angular frequencies ω1, ω2 = constrained by Eq. (5)
    The rotation frequencies must satisfy ω1/ω2 = (2n₁±1)/(2n₂±1); this constraint is the central condition, asserted rather than derived.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The boundary state formalism and open/closed string channel duality give the correct interaction amplitude between the two D-strings.
    Used throughout; standard in the string theory literature but not proven in this paper.
  • domain assumption The imaginary part of the one-loop amplitude yields the pair production rate via the Schwinger formula W = −2S⁻¹ Im A (Eq. 13).
    Standard for the Schwinger effect, but its applicability to the rotating, time-dependent system is assumed without detailed justification.
  • domain assumption The D-strings undergo rigid transverse rotation with constant angular velocities around a common axis, with boundary conditions depending on time as ωt rather than ωX⁰.
    Setup in Appendix A, Eq. (A.3); the paper emphasizes this choice to avoid position-dependent angular velocity.
  • ad hoc to paper Pair production requires quenching the tachyonic field and imposing the rational frequency condition (5).
    Introduced in Sec. 2 to make the determinant factorizable and the amplitude imaginary; the derivation is summarized as 'parameter analysis' and not shown.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dressed D-strings with Instability and Transverse Rotation: The Open String Pair Production." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TZ6BTLVA

@misc{pith2026250512326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dressed D-strings with Instability and Transverse Rotation: The Open String Pair Production},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TZ6BTLVA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12326}
}
read the original abstract

Motivated by the Schwinger effect in the QED, we investigate the open string pair creation for the dressed D1-branes, incorporating electric and tachyonic fields and also transverse rotation in the presence of the antisymmetric (Kalb-Ramond) background field. The background spacetime is partially compact on a torus. Our first observation is that the presence of the tachyonic field together with the transverse rotation prevents the open string production. Consequently, we shall quench the tachyonic field. Thus, we find that the pair creation arises only when the angular frequencies of the D-strings satisfy a rational relation. Besides, we observe that the compactification enhances the production rate of the open strings. Finally, we study various special cases of the system.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    String Theory

    J. Polchinski, “ String Theory”, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998), Vol- umes I and II

    work page 1998

  2. [2]

    Polchinski, Phys

    J. Polchinski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 4724-4727 (1995) [ arXiv:hep-th/9510017]

    arXiv 1995

  3. [3]

    D-Branes

    C. V. Johnson, “ D-Branes”, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Sen, Mod

    A. Sen, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 19 841-854 (2004) [ arXiv:hep-th/030806]

    work page 2004

  5. [5]

    TASI lectures on D-branes,

    J. Polchinski, “ TASI lectures on D-branes, ” [arXiv:hep-th/9611050]; J. Polchinski, S. Chaudhuri and C. V. Johnson, “ Notes on D-branes, ” [arXiv:hep-th/9602052]

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    Gauge/Gravity Correspondence from Open/Closed String Duality

    P. Di Vecchia, A. Liccardo, R. Marotta and F. Pezzella, JHEP 06 007 (2003) [arXiv:hep-th/0305061]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    Green and P

    M.B. Green and P. Wai, Nucl. Phys. B 431 131 (1994). 12

    work page 1994

  8. [8]

    M. Frau, A. Liccardo and R. Musto, Nucl. Phys. B 602 39-60 (2001) [arXiv:hep-th/0012035]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2001

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Green and M

    M.B. Green and M. Gutperle, Nucl. Phys. B 476 484-514 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9604091]

    1996 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Li, Nucl

    M. Li, Nucl. Phys. B 460 351 (1996) [ arXiv:hep-th/9510161]

    1996 arXiv

  3. [12]

    C. G. Callan and I. R. Klebanov, Nucl. Phys. B 465 473-486 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9511173]

    1996 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Di Vecchia, M

    P. Di Vecchia, M. Frau, I. Pesando, S. Sciuto, A. Lerda and R. Russo, Nucl. Phys. B 507 259-276 (1997) [ arXiv:hep-th/9707068]

    1997 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Bachas, Phys

    C. Bachas, Phys. Lett. B 374 37-42 (1996) [ arXiv:hep-th/9511043]

    1996 arXiv

  6. [15]

    M. Frau, I. Pesando, S. Sciuto, A. Lerda and R. Russo, Phys. Lett. B 400 52 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9702037]

    1997 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Arfaei and D

    H. Arfaei and D. Kamani, Phys. Lett. B 452 (1999) 54-60 , arXiv:hep-th/9909167; D. Kamani, Phys. Lett. B 487 (2000) 187-191 , arXiv:hep-th/0010019; E. Maghsoodi and D. Kamani, Nucl. Phys. B 922 (2017) 280-292 , arXiv:1707.08383 [hep-th]; M. Saidy-Sarjoubi and D. Kamani, Phys. ...

    1999 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Daniali and D

    H. Daniali and D. Kamani, Nucl. Phys. B 975 (2022) 115683 , arXiv:2202.09347 [hep-th]; H. Daniali and D. Kamani, Phys. Lett. B 837 (2023) 137631 , arXiv:2212.10462 [hep-th]; H. Daniali, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 1072 , arXiv:2311.06919 [hep-th]; H. Daniali and D. Kamani, JHEP ...

    2022 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Teymourtashlou and D

    S. Teymourtashlou and D. Kamani, Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) 761 , arXiv:2108.10164 [hep-th]; D. Kamani, Eur. Phys. J. C 26 (2002) 285-291 , arXiv:hep-th/0008020; F. Safarzadeh-Maleki and D. Kamani, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 107902 , 13 arXiv:1410.4948 [hep-th]; D. Kamani, Phys. Le...

    2021 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Arfaei and D

    H. Arfaei and D. Kamani, Nucl. Phys. B 561 (1999) 57-76 , arXiv:hep-th/9911146; H. Arfaei and D. Kamani, Phys. Lett. B 475 (2000) 39-45 , arXiv:hep-th/9909079; D. Kamani, Nucl. Phys. B 601 (2001) 149-168 , arXiv:hep-th/0104089; F. Safarzadeh-Maleki and D. Kamani, Phys. Rev. D ...

    1999 arXiv

  11. [20]

    J. X. Lu, B. Ning, R. Wei and S. S. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 79 126002 (2009) [arXiv:hep-th/0902.1716]

    2009 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Bachas and M

    C. Bachas and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 296 77-84 (1992) , [arXiv:hep-th/9209032]

    1992 arXiv

  13. [22]

    J. X. Lu and N. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 977 115721 (2022) [arXiv:hep-th/2002.09940]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Jia and J

    Q. Jia and J. X. Lu, Phys. Lett. B 789 568-574 (2019) [ arXiv:hep-th/1809.03806]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [24]

    J. X. Lu, Phys. Lett. B 788 480-485 (2019) [ arXiv:hep-th/1808.04950]; J. X. Lu, Nucl. Phys. B 934 39-79 (2018) [ arXiv:hep-th/1801.03411]; J. X. Lu, JHEP 12 076 (2017) [ arXiv:hep-th/1710.02660]; J. X. Lu, JHEP 10 238 (2019) [ arXiv:hep-th/1907.12637]; J. X. Lu, Phys. Lett. B...

    2019 arXiv

  16. [25]

    J. X. Lu and S. S. Xu, Phys. Lett. B 680 387-394 (2009) [arXiv:hep-th/0906.0679]; J. X. Lu and S. S. Xu, JHEP 09 093 (2009) [ arXiv:hep-th/0904.4112]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Q. Jia, J. X. Lu, Z. Wu and X. Zhu, Nucl. Phys. B 953 114947 (2020) [arXiv:hep-th/1904.12480]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [27]

    The open string pair production revisited,

    J. X. Lu, “The open string pair production revisited,” [arXiv:hep-th/2405.02558]; T. Kitao, K. Ohta and N. Ohta, Nucl. Phys. B 953 , 79-106 (1999); N. Ohta and J.G. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 418 , 70-76 (1998); G. Aldazabal, L.E. Ibanez, F. Quevedo and A.M. Uranga, JHEP 08, 002 (200...

    1999 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Daniali and D

    H. Daniali and D. Kamani, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) 408 , arXiv:2305.08089 [hep-th]. 14

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    J. C. Breckenridge, G. Michaud and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 55 6438-6446 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9611174]

    1997 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Sen, Int

    A. Sen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20 5513 (2005) [ arXiv:hep-th/0410103]; A. Sen, JHEP 08 010 (1998) [ arXiv:hep-th/9805019]; A. Sen, JHEP 12 027 (1999) [ arXiv:hep-th/9812031]; A. Sen, JHEP 10 008 (1999) [ arXiv:hep-th/9809111]; A. Sen, JHEP 08 012 (1998) [ arXiv:hep-th/9805170]

    2005 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Kharchev and A

    S. Kharchev and A. Zabrodin, J. Geom. Phys. 94 19 (2015) [arXiv:math-CA/1502.04603]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Acatrinei, Phys

    C. Acatrinei, Phys. Lett. B 482 420-428 (2000) [ arXiv:hep-th/0002017]

    2000 arXiv

  24. [33]

    C. G. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi and S. A. Yost, Nucl. Phys. B 288 525 (1987) ; C. G. Callan, C. Lovelace, C. R. Nappi and S. A. Yost, Nucl. Phys. B 308 221 (1988) . 15

    1987

Pith tools

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