Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 56 references

Fixed-Time Voltage Regulation for Boost Converters via Unit-Safe Saturating Functions

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims a boost-converter controller that reaches its target voltage within a fixed settling time independent of the initial state, using unit-safe saturating functions to suppress chattering while observers handle unknown load res

desk verdict The record is an abstract without its paper—the attached full text is a different preprint, so there's nothing to referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06987 v1 pith:7UZDSUWU submitted 2025-08-09 eess.SY cs.SY

Yiwei Liu , Ziming Wang , Xin Wang , Yiding Ji This is my paper
classification eess.SYcs.SY
keywords fixed-timestabilityboostconvertervoltageregulationsaturatingfunctionschatteringsuppressiondisturbanceobserveradaptivecontrolstate
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 aims to establish that a boost converter's output voltage can be regulated to its reference within a fixed settling time, a bound that holds no matter where the system starts. That is stronger than asymptotic or even finite-time convergence: the designer can promise a regulation deadline without knowing the initial operating point. The paper also claims that a new class of unit-safe saturating functions eliminates the chattering typical of fixed-time sliding-mode designs, and that unknown load resistance is managed by state observers and adaptive parameters rather than assumed known. If these claims hold, the controller would be usable at the switching frequencies of real converters, an issue the abstract says is checked with both non-real-time and real-time simulation.

What carries the argument

The unit-safe saturating functions, the paper's new family of bounded nonlinear functions, take the role of the discontinuous sign and power-of-error terms used in conventional fixed-time controllers. They keep the control effort bounded and smooth while preserving the fixed-time convergence property, which is what suppresses chattering. The same function family is used to construct the disturbance observer. Around these functions the controller wraps a state observer and adaptive parameter estimates for the unknown load resistance, and the fixed-time claim rests on the closed-loop error dynamics and its bound on the settling time.

What would settle it

Simulate or build a boost converter with the proposed controller, then start it repeatedly from different initial capacitor voltages and apply sudden load steps of different sizes; if the measured settling time grows with the initial condition or with the load-step size beyond a small ripple and discretization tolerance, the fixed-time claim fails. A second check targets the machinery directly: replace the averaged model with a switched model that includes inductor parasitic resistance, diode forward drop, and measurement noise, and verify that the chattering suppression and the settling-time

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a feedback controller for a boost converter can guarantee fixed-time voltage regulation: the output voltage reaches its reference within a fixed time interval that does not depend on the initial conditions, so the regulation deadline is the same regardless of where the converter starts. To obtain this property without the chattering typical of fixed-time sliding-mode control, it introduces a new class of function families, the unit-safe saturating functions, which keep the control effort bounded and smooth while preserving the fixed-time convergence property. Unknown load resistance is not assumed away: state observers and adaptive parameters estimate it onl

Load-bearing premise

The fixed-time guarantee rests on an averaged continuous-conduction-mode model of the converter with ideal switches and exactly known inductance and capacitance, plus a load resistance that is unknown but bounded (or slowly drifting) and observer and adaptive estimates that converge quickly enough that their error transients do not defeat the convergence argument within the fixed-time horizon.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, boost converters can be designed with a guaranteed, initial-condition-independent settling-time bound, making worst-case regulation deadlines verifiable before deployment.
  • The saturating-function construction removes the sign-function terms that cause chattering, so the algorithm is compatible with the switching-frequency constraints of real converters rather than only averaged simulation models.
  • Because load resistance is estimated online, the controller maintains its fixed-time guarantee across load steps without a separate identification phase or a known-load assumption.
  • The disturbance observer built from the same function family provides a component that can be compared against existing observers in other fixed-time control loops.
  • The combination of offline and real-time simulation results is offered as evidence that the fixed-time property survives the move from a continuous-time design to the discrete-time, switching implementation used in practice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fixed-time Lyapunov-style construction is largely independent of the specific converter topology, so the same saturating-function family should transfer to buck and buck-boost converters and to DC microgrid voltage regulation; the paper's own claims only cover boost converters, making this a testable extension rather than a stated result.
  • The 'fixed time regardless of initial conditions' promise is sensitive to what happens inside the switching cycle: ripple, measurement noise, and parasitic losses lie outside the averaged model, so the practical settling time will be the predicted constant plus a discretization and parasitic correction, and measuring that gap on hardware is the natural follow-up.
  • The record reviewed here contains the abstract but not the derivation or the simulation plots, so the fixed-time bound and chattering-suppression properties are asserted rather than inspectable in this record; the falsifier below is the decisive check.
  • The unit-safe property, if it means the control law stays dimensionally consistent when error terms carry fractional powers, could simplify gain tuning across converters with very different voltage and current scales, though the abstract does not spell out this consequence.
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

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The submission, arXiv:2508.06987, presents an abstract for a boost converter control paper claiming fixed-time voltage regulation, chattering suppression via a novel saturating-function family, handling of unknown load resistance through state observers and adaptive parameters, and validation in non-real-time and real-time simulations. However, the full text attached to the submission is not this paper: it is arXiv:2508.06984v2, a cosmology paper on primordial gravitational waves in parity-violating symmetric teleparallel gravity, by different authors and with unrelated content. No mathematical model, control law, Lyapunov argument, observer error dynamics, simulation results, or any technical content for the claimed boost converter work appears in the record. Thus, as submitted, the manuscript does not contain the paper described by the abstract.

Significance. Fixed-time voltage regulation for boost converters is a relevant and active topic, and the abstract's claims, if rigorously proved and validated, would be of practical interest. However, the significance of this specific submission cannot be evaluated because the record contains none of the supporting material: no converter model, no control design, no stability proof, no simulation data, and no comparison with existing designs. There are also no compensating strengths such as machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, parameter-free derivations, or falsifiable predictions. The only assessable content is the abstract, and a two-paragraph abstract cannot support a technical claim of fixed-time stability, chattering suppression, or deployability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full Text] The body of the submission is not the manuscript announced in the abstract. It is a different paper, arXiv:2508.06984v2, titled "Primordial Gravitational Waves in Parity-violating Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity" by Zhai, Fu, Fu, Wu, and Yu. Nothing in the body concerns boost converters, fixed-time control, saturating functions, state observers, or adaptive parameters. This is not a minor formatting issue; it means the claimed technical content is entirely absent from the record.
  2. [Abstract] The central claim of fixed-time voltage regulation 'regardless of initial conditions' is unverifiable because the accompanying mathematical framework is missing. A fixed-time stability claim requires a system model, a control law, a Lyapunov function or equivalent argument, and an explicit settling-time bound that is independent of initial conditions. None of these appear in the submitted text. The few equations in the full text (e.g., Eq. (11)) belong to the cosmology paper and are irrelevant.
  3. [Abstract (simulations)] The abstract claims that both non-real-time and real-time simulations validate the proposed algorithm's effectiveness and deployability, but no simulation results, parameter tables, figures, or implementation details are present. Consequently, the validation claim is unsupported. For a power-electronics paper, the absence of any experimental or real-time simulation record makes the deployability statement impossible to assess.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The term 'unit-safe saturating function family' is used without definition or context; the reader cannot tell what mathematical property distinguishes it from existing saturating functions. A self-contained submission should define it.
  2. [General] The title of the submission matches no portion of the full text, and the full text contains encoding artifacts. These are secondary to the mismatch noted above but further reflect the lack of a coherent submission.
  3. [References] Because the full text is a different paper, its references are unrelated to boost converters and fixed-time control. No relevant literature comparison for the claimed control method is available in this record.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be identified: the record contains no target-paper derivation to inspect (full text is a different arXiv paper).

full rationale

The claimed paper (arXiv:2508.06987, 'Fixed-Time Voltage Regulation for Boost Converters via Unit-Safe Saturating Functions') is represented only by its abstract. The bundled full text is arXiv:2508.06984v2, 'Primordial Gravitational Waves in Parity-violating Symmetric Teleparallel Gravity,' by different authors (Zhai, Fu, Fu, Wu, Yu) with unrelated content. The fixed-time regulation claim, saturating-function family, observers, adaptive parameters, and simulations are asserted in the abstract but no model, control law, Lyapunov function, settling-time bound equation, or simulation figure is present in the provided record. Circularity analysis requires quoting the paper's equations and exhibiting that a 'prediction' reduces to an input by construction or that a load-bearing premise is justified only by a self-citation. Here there is no derivation chain to walk: no Eq. X = Eq. Y can be exhibited, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no self-citation is invoked. The mismatch between metadata and bundled text is a serious correctness/integrity issue and means the central claim is unsupported, but unsupported is not the same as circular. Accordingly, no circular step is identified and the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The actual paper contributes a controller plus supporting constructs, but its visible evidence base is only the abstract. The free parameters are designer-chosen controller and observer gains whose values the abstract does not report. The axioms are the standard idealizations of averaged-model power electronics plus the separation assumption typical of observer-based fixed-time designs. The invented entities are mathematical constructions with no evidence outside the closed loop. Counts here are honest abstract-level estimates, not a reading of the full derivation.

free parameters (3)
  • Fixed-time controller gains (alpha, beta and exponents p, q)
    In standard fixed-time control the settling-time bound is an explicit function of these designer-chosen gains; the abstract's 'fixed time' guarantee is therefore selected by gain choice rather than independently predicted.
  • Saturating function shape parameters (saturation level, smoothness exponent)
    The novel unit-safe function family must be tuned to balance chattering suppression against convergence speed; the abstract does not state these parameters or a tuning rule.
  • Adaptive and observer gains for load resistance and disturbance estimation
    Adaptive parameters manage the unknown load resistance; their adaptation rates are design choices that set the convergence of the estimates, and the abstract gives no values, bounds, or update laws.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Boost converter described by an averaged continuous-conduction-mode state-space model with known L and C and a duty-cycle input.
    The fixed-time result is formulated for this idealization; parasitic effects and switching ripple are excluded from the guarantee, and the model section that would state these limits is not present in the record.
  • domain assumption Unknown load resistance is bounded and slowly varying (bounded derivative).
    Adaptive estimation of the load resistance requires such regularity for the estimates and the Lyapunov argument to close; the abstract mentions adaptive parameters without stating bounds.
  • standard math Standard fixed-time Lyapunov stability criteria apply to the closed loop including the new saturating functions.
    The proof presumably relies on standard fixed-time Lyapunov theorems and compatibility conditions that must hold for the new nonlinearities; the theorems are unproblematic, but their assumptions are unverified here.
  • domain assumption Observer and controller separation: state and disturbance estimation errors do not destroy the fixed-time bound.
    The abstract bundles observers with the controller; the fixed-time guarantee requires estimation error transients to be absorbed by the adaptation and saturating terms, a property that must be proven and is not visible from the abstract.
invented entities (2)
  • Unit-safe saturating function family
    purpose: Bounded smooth nonlinearity inserted into the fixed-time control law to suppress chattering while preserving the fixed-time Lyapunov bound.
    The function family exists only to make the proposed controller work; the abstract provides no property or testable behavior outside the closed loop that would independently validate it.
  • New disturbance observer based on the proposed function family
    purpose: Estimates lumped disturbances and unknown-load effects to feed the controller.
    A design artifact of this paper; the abstract itself notes its advantages and limitations relative to existing observers, so its value is comparative and internal to the design.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fixed-Time Voltage Regulation for Boost Converters via Unit-Safe Saturating Functions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UZDSUWU

@misc{pith2026250806987,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fixed-Time Voltage Regulation for Boost Converters via Unit-Safe Saturating Functions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UZDSUWU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06987}
}
read the original abstract

This paper explores the voltage regulation challenges in boost converter systems, which are critical components in power electronics due to their ability to step up voltage levels efficiently. The proposed control algorithm ensures fixed-time stability, a desirable property that guarantees system stability within a fixed time frame regardless of initial conditions. To tackle the common chattering issues in conventional fixed-time control methods, a novel class of function families is introduced. State observers and adaptive parameters are utilized to manage the uncertainties associated with unknown load resistance. Furthermore, a new disturbance observer is developed using the proposed function family, and its advantages and limitations are illustrated through comparison with existing designs. Finally, both non-real-time and real-time simulations are conducted to validate the effectiveness and deployability of the proposed control algorithm.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 241103 (2016); Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 061102 (2016); Astrophys. J. Lett.���, L35 (2017); Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 161101 (2017); Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 141101 (2017); Phys. Rev. X�, 031040 (2019); Astrophys. J. Lett.���, L3 (2020)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    M. C. Guzzetti, N. Bartolo, M. Liguori, and S. Matar- rese, Riv. Nuovo Cim.��, 399 (2016), arXiv:1605.01615 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Bartoloet al., JCAP��, 026 (2016), arXiv:1610.06481 [astro-ph.CO]

    N. Bartoloet al., JCAP��, 026 (2016), arXiv:1610.06481 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Auclairet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev

    P. Auclairet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Living Rev. Rel.��, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    R.-G. Cai, Z. Cao, Z.-K. Guo, S.-J. Wang, and T. Yang, Natl. Sci. Rev.�, 687 (2017), arXiv:1703.00187 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Caprini and D

    C. Caprini and D. G. Figueroa, Class. Quant. Grav.��, 163001 (2018), arXiv:1801.04268 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Kuroyanagi, T

    S. Kuroyanagi, T. Chiba, and T. Takahashi, JCAP��, 038 (2018), arXiv:1807.00786 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    P. A. R. Adeet al.(BICEP, Keck), Phys. Rev. Lett.���, 151301 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Barausseet al., Gen

    E. Barausseet al., Gen. Rel. Grav.��, 81 (2020), arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev.�, 685 (2017)

    2017

  4. [12]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A��, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cannone, G

    D. Cannone, G. Tasinato, and D. Wands, JCAP��, 029 (2015), arXiv:1409.6568 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Mylova, O

    M. Mylova, O. ¨Ozsoy, S. Parameswaran, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP��, 024 (2018), arXiv:1808.10475 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Ozsoy, M

    O. Ozsoy, M. Mylova, S. Parameswaran, C. Powell, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, JCAP��, 036 (2019), arXiv:1902.04976 [hep-th]. 8

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Lue, L.-M

    A. Lue, L.-M. Wang, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett.��, 1506 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812088

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Jackiw and S

    R. Jackiw and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. D��, 104012 (2003)

    2003

  10. [18]

    Alexander and N

    S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Phys. Rept.���, 1 (2009)

    2009

  11. [19]

    Crisostomi, K

    M. Crisostomi, K. Noui, C. Charmousis, and D. Langlois, Phys. Rev. D��, 044034 (2018), arXiv:1710.04531 [hep- th]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Nishizawa and T

    A. Nishizawa and T. Kobayashi, Phys. Rev. D��, 124018 (2018), arXiv:1809.00815 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gao and X.-Y

    X. Gao and X.-Y. Hong, Phys. Rev. D���, 064057 (2020), arXiv:1906.07131 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. Li, H. Rao, and D. Zhao, JCAP��, 023 (2020), arXiv:2007.08038 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    M. Li, Z. Li, and H. Rao, Phys. Lett. B���, 137395 (2022), arXiv:2201.02357 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Conroy and T

    A. Conroy and T. Koivisto, JCAP��, 016 (2019), arXiv:1908.04313 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Li and D

    M. Li and D. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B���, 136968 (2022), arXiv:2108.01337 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    M. Li, Y. Tong, and D. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D���, 104002 (2022), arXiv:2203.06912 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    S. H.-S. Alexander, M. E. Peskin, and M. M. Sheikh- Jabbari, Phys. Rev. Lett.��, 081301 (2006), arXiv:hep- th/0403069

    2006

  20. [28]

    Satoh, S

    M. Satoh, S. Kanno, and J. Soda, Phys. Rev. D��, 023526 (2008), arXiv:0706.3585 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Saito, K

    S. Saito, K. Ichiki, and A. Taruya, JCAP��, 002 (2007), arXiv:0705.3701 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Gluscevic and M

    V. Gluscevic and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D��, 123529 (2010), arXiv:1002.1308 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. Wang, Q. Wu, W. Zhao, and T. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D ��, 103512 (2013), arXiv:1208.5490 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S. H. S. Alexander, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D��, 1640013 (2016), arXiv:1604.00703 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bartolo and G

    N. Bartolo and G. Orlando, JCAP��, 034 (2017), arXiv:1706.04627 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. Qiao, T. Zhu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D ���, 043528 (2020), arXiv:1911.01580 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y.-F. Wang, R. Niu, T. Zhu, and W. Zhao, Astrophys. J.���, 58 (2021), arXiv:2002.05668 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Okounkova, W

    M. Okounkova, W. M. Farr, M. Isi, and L. C. Stein, Phys. Rev. D���, 044067 (2022), arXiv:2101.11153 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Q. Wu, T. Zhu, R. Niu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D���, 024035 (2022), arXiv:2110.13870 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    C. Gong, T. Zhu, R. Niu, Q. Wu, J.-L. Cui, X. Zhang, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D���, 044034 (2022), arXiv:2112.06446 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S. D. Odintsov and V. K. Oikonomou, Phys. Rev. D���, 104054 (2022), arXiv:2205.07304 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  32. [40]

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D���, 044051 (2023), arXiv:2211.04711 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D���, 024031 (2023), arXiv:2210.05259 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. Fu, J. Liu, T. Zhu, H. Yu, and P. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C��, 204 (2021), arXiv:2006.03771 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Peng, Z.-M

    Z.-Z. Peng, Z.-M. Zeng, C. Fu, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D���, 124044 (2022), arXiv:2209.10374 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R.-G. Cai, C. Fu, and W.-W. Yu, Phys. Rev. D���, 103520 (2022), arXiv:2112.04794 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    C. Fu, J. Liu, X.-Y. Yang, W.-W. Yu, and Y. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D���, 063526 (2024), arXiv:2308.15329 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J. M. Nester and H.-J. Yo, Chin. J. Phys.��, 113 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9809049

    1999 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L

    J. Beltr´ an Jim´ enez, L. Heisenberg, and T. S. Koivisto, Universe�, 173 (2019), arXiv:1903.06830 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Capozziello, V

    S. Capozziello, V. De Falco, and C. Ferrara, Eur. Phys. J. C��, 865 (2022), arXiv:2208.03011 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kobayashi, A

    T. Kobayashi, A. Oikawa, and H. Otsuka, Phys. Rev. D ��, 083508 (2016), arXiv:1510.08768 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Cabo Bizet, O

    N. Cabo Bizet, O. Loaiza-Brito, and I. Zavala, JHEP ��, 082 (2016), arXiv:1605.03974 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    ¨Ozsoy and Z

    O. ¨Ozsoy and Z. Lalak, JCAP��, 040 (2021), arXiv:2008.07549 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Akramiet al.(Planck), Astron

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

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. Chen, C. Liu, and Y.-L. Zhang, JCAP��, 050 (2025), arXiv:2410.18916 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Calabreseet al.(ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Calabreseet al.(ACT), (2025), arXiv:2503.14454 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Vallisneri, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D��, 042001 (2008), arXiv:gr- qc/0703086

    2008

  48. [56]

    H. Su, B. Xu, J. Chen, C. Liu, and Y.-L. Zhang, Com- mun. Theor. Phys.��, 115403 (2025), arXiv:2503.20778 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.