Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 26 references

This paper claims that a three-scalar model with a finite-temperature stasis attractor produces stasis epochs whose length—and even occurrence—depends sharply on initial conditions, ranging from about 10 e-folds to none.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-07-31 23:23 UTC pith:23N3Z5HG

load-bearing objection A solid, transparent derivation of the thermal stasis attractor's finite shelf life, undermined by an unmodeled φ→SM decay operator that the 'satisfies all constraints' claim depends on. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.23965 v1 pith:23N3Z5HG submitted 2026-07-27 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

The Pull of Stasis: A Study of the Dynamics of the Thermal Stasis Attractor

Jonah Barber , Keith R. Dienes , Brooks Thomas This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO hep-ph
keywords thermal stasiscosmological attractorearly universescalar field modelmatter-radiation stasisannihilation pumpexpiration datebig-bang nucleosynthesis constraints
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.

Cosmological stasis is a proposed early-universe epoch in which matter and radiation abundances stay fixed even though the universe keeps expanding. This paper tries to establish that stasis can come from an explicit, self-consistent particle-physics model: three real scalar fields with an s-channel annihilation pump that makes the annihilation rate grow as the particles cool. The resulting attractor pulls the system toward a fixed 2/5 matter, 3/5 radiation split, but only while the gas temperature lies in a finite window; below the lower end the attractor expires. The paper's central quantitative claim is that the number of e-folds of stasis depends sensitively on initial conditions: about 10.5 e-folds when the system starts at the fixed point, about 6.3 along the fastest trajectory, roughly 2 e-folds when the matter abundance starts at unity, and zero for many other starts—though those universes still spend time under the attractor's influence. A sympathetic reader cares because this is a concrete existence proof that near-stasis and partial-stasis cosmologies are viable and observationally distinguishable from standard pre-BBN history.

Core claim

The central claim is that the thermal stasis mechanism can be realized in a three-scalar model with an s-channel annihilation pump, and that this realization satisfies the relevant internal consistency and observational constraints. For q = −2, the fixed point is Ω_M = 2/5, with Jacobian eigenvalues (−1/5, −1), so the fixed point is a genuine attractor; the fastest approach is exactly logistic, ds/dN = s(1 − s). Because the q = −2 scaling of the annihilation cross-section only holds for T_min ≲ T ≲ T_max, the attractor has a finite lifetime, with a 'manufacture date' and an 'expiration date'. Consequently, the duration of stasis depends on initial conditions: near the fixed point or along th

What carries the argument

The central object is the 'coldness', Ξ ≡ T^q ρ_M / m^{q+4}, which is the quantity that stays constant during stasis; for q = −2, Ξ = ρ_M / (m^4 τ^2). Together with Ω_M, it forms a two-variable dynamical system whose Jacobian at the fixed point has eigenvalues (−1/5, −1), creating fast and slow approach directions. The microscopic engine is the s-channel annihilation process ϕϕ → X → χχ, whose one-loop mediator propagator develops a term linear in the center-of-mass momentum, making the swept-volume rate scale as |p_CM|^{-2} (q = −2) only within a temperature window; the lower end of that window is the attractor's expiration date.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that ϕ decays to visible-sector states through couplings that are assumed but not part of the model's Lagrangian (and, secondarily, that the uncalculated GR correction to the mediator propagator is O(1)); if either fails, the universe is not reheated before BBN or the q = −2 window closes, and the claim of satisfying all constraints collapses.

What would settle it

Compute the one-loop coefficient b_X^(1)(p^2) of the H-dependent correction to the mediator propagator in the FRW background; if it is not O(1) but instead large enough that the GR term dominates within the temperature window for the paper's benchmark couplings, the q = −2 scaling and the attractor fail. Equivalently, for a specified ϕ→SM decay operator, compute the BBN dark-radiation abundance: if ΔN_eff exceeds about 0.16 for any consistent decay time, the model is excluded.

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

If this is right

  • In a broad class of initial conditions, the universe spends a significant number of e-folds under the attractor yet never reaches stasis; such 'near-stasis' cosmologies still differ from standard matter/radiation domination before BBN.
  • The stasis epoch has an upper bound set by the temperature window: even from the best initial condition, this model gives about 10.5 e-folds, providing a benchmark for observational searches.
  • The fastest approach to stasis is exactly solvable as a logistic equation, so along that trajectory the number of e-folds to stasis can be predicted analytically.
  • The model satisfies its consistency constraints—kinetic equilibrium, negligible 4→2 annihilation, no Bose-Einstein condensate, negligible mediator relics, thermodynamic limit, GR corrections, and BBN/dark-radiation bounds—in large regions of parameter space, with the BBN constraint not excluding any shown region of the (τ, ϱ_M) plane.
  • Late-time dark-radiation bounds force reheating via ϕ decay to occur after stasis ends; otherwise too much dark radiation survives to BBN.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The authors leave implicit that the same initial-condition sensitivity means any attempt to use stasis to solve pre-BBN puzzles must specify initial conditions, not just particle-physics parameters; otherwise e-fold counts are not predictive.
  • The expiration-date structure suggests a model-building principle: any stasis realized through a momentum-dependent cross-section has a finite temperature shelf life, so 'manufacture' and 'expiration' temperatures are tunable design parameters that could place stasis in observationally interesting windows.
  • The paper sets aside density-perturbation growth; an immediate testable extension would be to compute whether near-stasis epochs generate enhanced halo formation, which would modify the annihilation pump and could tighten or shift the allowed parameter space.
  • The fastest trajectory's exact logistic solution, which the paper notes also appears in another known stasis realization, invites a test of whether a universal fastest-path structure governs stasis attractors more generally.

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 analyzes a three-real-scalar model (ϕ, X, χ) that realizes a thermal stasis attractor. The core dynamics are reduced to a two-dimensional flow in the matter abundance Ω_M and a 'coldness' variable Ξ. For an annihilation cross-section σv ∝ |p_CM|^{-2} (q = -2), the fixed point is Ω_M = 2/5 with Jacobian eigenvalues (-1/5, -1), so the fixed point is attracting. The authors identify a 'fastest' trajectory that is exactly logistic, derive approximate analytic trajectories for the approach to stasis, and show that the validity of the q = -2 form is restricted to a finite temperature window [T_min, T_max], giving an 'expiration date' (and a 'manufacture date'). They then impose a long list of internal consistency conditions and observational bounds, identify a 'stasis wedge' in the (τ, ϱ_M) plane, and show numerically that the duration of stasis is sensitive to initial conditions, ranging from about 2 to 10 e-folds in the benchmark cases of Fig. 7.

Significance. If the model is taken as stated, the paper makes a useful conceptual point: a stasis attractor need not produce a stasis epoch; the same attractor can pull the system for many e-folds without ever reaching stasis, and the duration of the realized stasis epoch can depend sharply on initial conditions. The analytic core is a strength: the eigenvalue computation, the logistic solution along the fastest trajectory, and the explicit initial-condition conditions (Eqs. (5.6), (5.20), (5.21)) are transparent and checkable. The paper is also honest about the extent to which it builds on Ref. [10], and the constraint analysis is unusually explicit, with Tables I and II summarizing the conditions that define the allowed region. The main weakness is that the claim of 'satisfying all relevant phenomenological and cosmological constraints' is conditional on a φ→SM decay mechanism that is not part of the defined Lagrangian; absent that mechanism, the late universe in the model is dark-sector dominated and fails BBN/ΔN_eff bounds. This is a fixable but load-bearing gap.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV.G and Eq. (3.27)] The abstract and Introduction claim the model 'satisfies all relevant phenomenological and cosmological constraints,' but the only mechanism that transfers energy to the visible sector is introduced conditionally in Section IV.G: 'If φ couples to the fields of the visible sector via highly suppressed operators...'. The Lagrangian in Eq. (3.27) contains no such operator, and the two Z2 symmetries imposed in Section III.E forbid any renormalizable φ-SM coupling (φ is odd under the first Z2). Without an explicit Z2-breaking extension, φ is stable, no visible-sector reheating occurs, and the post-stasis universe is dominated by dark radiation plus the stable ϕ gas. The condition is therefore a property of an unspecified extension, not of the model as defined. The manuscript should either add an explicit φ→SM operator to the Lagrangian and re-derive the stasis-pump and late-time constraints w
  2. [Section IV.G (decay back-reaction)] Even if one accepts that a highly suppressed φ→SM decay operator is present, the analysis does not check the back-reaction of that decay during the stasis epoch. Equations (4.83) through (4.87) assume that φ decays can be neglected until t_ϕ and that ρ_M thereafter redshifts as matter until decay reheats the SM. But a nonzero Γ_φ depletes ρ_M during stasis, modifying the pump equation (3.13) through an additional loss term in dρ_M/dt and an additional source term in dρ_γ/dt. The benchmark durations N_s quoted in Section VI.B and the BBN bound in Eq. (4.87) assume Φ decays only after t_end. The authors should demonstrate that for the benchmark parameters the φ decay rate satisfies Γ_φ ≪ H throughout the stasis window, and that the φ abundance at t_end is consistent with the value used in Eq. (4.87).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section IV.B, Eq. (4.18)] The coefficient b_X^(1)(p^2) is not computed, and the text says 'deriving it is beyond the scope of this paper.' The order-of-magnitude assumption is probably harmless because Fig. 6 shows the corresponding contour is very subleading, but this insensitivity should be stated quantitatively in the text: for example, the contour in Fig. 6 would need to move by many orders of magnitude before affecting the stasis wedge.
  2. [Section IV.C, Eq. (4.48)] The Monte-Carlo coefficient ε ≈ 0.669 is quoted without describing the integration method, the number of samples, or the statistical uncertainty. Since ε enters the constraint contours (4.52)–(4.55) and hence the boundary of the 'stasis wedge' in Fig. 6, the numerical procedure should be documented, or the text should clearly state that only order-of-magnitude accuracy is intended.
  3. [Section III.D, Eq. (3.22)] The arrival criterion depends on the arbitrary cutoff δ. The text uses δ = 0.001 in Fig. 1 but should state the value used for the N_s values in Fig. 7 and confirm that the reported e-fold counts are not strongly δ-dependent. A one-sentence sensitivity test would settle this.
  4. [Eq. (4.51), footnote] The footnote about 'nine horizontal lines' is not appropriate for a journal article and should be removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Attractor derivation is internally self-contained; the main caveat (unspecified φ→SM decay operator) is a conditionality gap, not circularity.

full rationale

The central chain is derived within the paper: the cross-section ansatz (3.1) is combined with the thermal averages (3.10) to obtain the two-dimensional flow (3.13); Eqs. (3.15)–(3.21) fix the stasis point and compute the Jacobian eigenvalues, giving an attractor for q in (3.16); Eqs. (3.23)–(3.25) derive the logistic fastest trajectory; and Eqs. (3.28)–(3.39) show how the explicit three-scalar model realizes q=−2, followed by the temperature window (3.36)–(3.37) that defines the expiration date. The duration and initial-condition sensitivity results (e.g., Eq. (5.21), Fig. 7) are numerical outputs of these stated equations, not fitted quantities. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to forbid alternatives. The paper does rely on the same authors' Ref. [10] for the thermal-stasis pump mechanism and propagator form, but it displays the propagator and the dominance conditions explicitly and the reliance is acknowledged; this is independent published support rather than a self-referential proof loop. The strongest caveat is the abstract's claim of satisfying 'all relevant phenomenological and cosmological constraints': Section IV.G assumes an unspecified visible-sector coupling ('If φ couples to the fields of the visible-sector via highly suppressed operators...') that is not present in the Lagrangian (3.27), so the constraints claim is conditional on an extension. That is an assumption/limitation affecting correctness, not a circular derivation of the attractor dynamics itself. Likewise, the uncomputed coefficient b_X^(1)(p^2) in Section IV.B is explicitly subleading (confirmed in Fig. 6). These gaps do not make the derivation circular, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 4 invented entities

The model has four hand-chosen couplings/masses and arbitrary initial conditions; the central results are conditional on these. Several load-bearing ingredients (the propagator form, the GR correction, the SM decay operator, the neglect of quartic couplings) are taken from prior work or assumed ad hoc rather than independently verified. No quantity is fitted to observational data in a statistical sense.

free parameters (3)
  • g_phi, g_chi, g_G (m), mu/m = varied; e.g., gχ=3e-5, gϕ=0.5, g_G=1e-8 in Fig 6; gχ=1.25e-5, gϕ=1.00, g_G=9.21e-10 in Fig 7
    Model couplings/masses are chosen by hand to satisfy the constraints and to illustrate long stasis; the central results are parameter-dependent, not fitted to external data.
  • arrival cutoff delta = 0.001
    Defines when stasis is considered reached (Eq 3.22); N_s values depend on this arbitrary threshold.
  • initial conditions Omega_M^(0), tau^(0), rho_M^(0) = varies; Omega_M^(0)=1 in most of Sec. V; tau^(0)=tau_max/10 in Fig 7
    The paper's central claim is that stasis duration depends on these; they are chosen, not derived.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Flat FRW background with matter w=0 and radiation w=1/3, and standard Hubble evolution.
    Basis of Eqs (3.2)-(3.8).
  • domain assumption phi particles form a non-relativistic ideal gas with Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at temperature T.
    Used to evaluate thermal averages Eqs (3.9)-(3.10), (4.27)-(4.31); maintained by Eq (4.7).
  • domain assumption The one-loop X propagator has the form Eq (3.28) with coefficients Eq (3.29) from Ref [10]; the linear momentum term dominates in the window Eq (3.31).
    Central to obtaining q=-2 scaling; taken from the authors' prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper The unknown GR correction coefficient b_X^(1) is O(1) and can be neglected.
    Section IV.B states deriving it is beyond scope and assumes a value; the q=-2 scaling depends on this assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper The visible sector is populated after stasis by an unspecified highly suppressed phi -> SM decay operator.
    Section IV.G introduces this operator outside Lagrangian Eq (3.27) to satisfy BBN; it is not derived from the model.
  • domain assumption Quartic couplings lambda_phi, lambda_chi, lambda_phi_chi can be neglected in the regime of interest.
    Appendix A gives bounds; the analysis assumes parameter regions satisfying them.
  • domain assumption Dark radiation constraint Delta N_eff < 0.16 at 68% C.L. from external measurement.
    Used in Section IV.G to set the BBN upper bound on Omega_gamma.
invented entities (4)
  • Scalar field phi (matter) no independent evidence
    purpose: Massive matter particle; annihilates via phi phi -> chi chi to drive stasis.
    No direct detection; only a model role.
  • Scalar field X (mediator) no independent evidence
    purpose: s-channel mediator whose propagator's linear momentum term produces q=-2 cross-section.
    No collider or experimental handle discussed.
  • Scalar field chi (dark radiation) no independent evidence
    purpose: Massless dark radiation component in stasis.
    No observed counterpart.
  • Highly suppressed phi -> SM decay operator no independent evidence
    purpose: Reheats the visible sector after stasis ends.
    Not specified, assumed in Section IV.G.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 47274 in / 15323 out tokens · 152122 ms · 2026-07-31T23:23:30.134451+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Cosmological stasis, a surprising phenomenon in which the abundances of different energy components in the universe with different equations of state remain constant despite cosmological expansion, has been a focus of recent attention. This behavior emerges as the consequence of an attractor that governs the dynamics of the corresponding cosmological system and pulls it towards stasis even if the system is not initially in this state. However, while some systems actually reach stasis in finite time, it is also possible for such systems to spend considerable time under the influence of this attractor, continually heading towards stasis without ever quite reaching it. This too represents behavior that is entirely unexpected within standard cosmological scenarios. In this paper, we present an explicit model which realizes both of these behaviors in a thermal context while satisfying all relevant phenomenological and cosmological constraints. Within this model, we then examine how the attractor influences the cosmological dynamics and explore the potential consequences for the early universe.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.23965 by Brooks Thomas, Jonah Barber, Keith R. Dienes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Diagrammatic depiction of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Feynman diagram for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. One of the Feynman diagrams which contributes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Trajectories (solid orange, blue, and purple curves) within the (Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Representative trajectories for our system, similar to those in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The evolution of Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_8.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

26 extracted references · 16 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Stabilizing the potential The couplingsλ ϕ andλ χ play an important role in stabilizing the scalar potentialUin our model. Indeed, in order to ensure that⟨ϕ⟩=⟨χ⟩= 0 at the global minimum ofU, it is sufficient to impose the conservative bounds λϕ ≥ 6g2 ϕ µ2/m2 + 4 , λ χ ≥ 6g2 χ µ2/m2 + 4 (A1) on these couplings. We emphasize, however, thatλ ϕχ is not subje...

  2. [2]

    (3.27) can affect the cos- mological dynamics in other ways as well

    Comparison tos-channel variants forλ ϕχ andλ ϕ The interaction terms in Eq. (3.27) can affect the cos- mological dynamics in other ways as well. For example, in the presence of such interaction terms, the amplitude for the annihilation processϕϕ→χχ— a process which plays a pivotal role in the emergence of the stasis attrac- tor — receives contributions no...

  3. [3]

    temperate

    Radiation self-scattering We have assumed that the effect of self-interactions among theχparticles which collectively constitute the radiation in our thermal stasis scenario can be neglected. While such self-interactions do not have a direct impact on the stasis dynamics —i.e., on the equations of motion forρ M andT— they do have an impact on the phase- s...

  4. [4]

    Allahverdiet al., (2020), 10.21105/astro.2006.16182, arXiv:2006.16182 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Allahverdiet al., (2020), 10.21105/astro.2006.16182, arXiv:2006.16182 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    E. Abdallaet al., JHEAp34, 49 (2022), arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Batellet al., Int

    B. Batellet al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. A40, 2530004 (2025), arXiv:2411.04780 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    K. R. Dienes, L. Heurtier, F. Huang, D. Kim, T. M. P. Tait, and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D105, 023530 (2022), arXiv:2111.04753 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    K. R. Dienes, L. Heurtier, F. Huang, T. M. P. Tait, and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D109, 083508 (2024), arXiv:2309.10345 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    J. D. Barrow, E. J. Copeland, and A. R. Liddle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.253, 675 (1991)

    1991

  10. [10]

    K. R. Dienes, L. Heurtier, F. Huang, D. Kim, T. M. P. Tait, and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D112, 083546 (2025), arXiv:2212.01369 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    K. R. Dienes, L. Heurtier, F. Huang, T. M. P. Tait, and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D110, 123514 (2024), arXiv:2406.06830 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Halverson and S

    J. Halverson and S. Pandya, Phys. Rev. D110, 075041 (2024), arXiv:2408.00835 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    Barber, K

    J. Barber, K. R. Dienes, and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123515 (2024), arXiv:2408.16255 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Barber, K

    J. Barber, K. R. Dienes, and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063519 (2025), arXiv:2412.09123 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Huang and V

    F. Huang and V. Knapp-Perez, JHEP09, 072 (2025), arXiv:2502.20449 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    K. R. Dienes, L. Heurtier, D. Hoover, F. Huang, A. Paulsen, and B. Thomas, (2025), arXiv:2503.19959 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    A. J. Long, B. Shams Es Haghi, and M. Venegas, JCAP 01, 037 (2026), arXiv:2506.04502 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    K. R. Dienes, L. Heurtier, F. Huang, T. M. P. Tait, 36 and B. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D112, 083547 (2025), arXiv:2510.06551 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Barenboim and A.-K

    G. Barenboim and A.-K. Burns, (2026), arXiv:2607.03537 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Barenboim and A.-K

    G. Barenboim and A.-K. Burns, (2026), arXiv:2607.18449 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    J. H. Chang, P. Du, S. Ghosh, and S. Kumar, JCAP02, 075 (2026), arXiv:2510.01309 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    E. Aver, E. D. Skillman, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, M. K. Weller, K. A. Olive, D. A. Berg, J. J. Salzer, J. H. Miller, and J. E. M´ endez-Delgado, (2026), arXiv:2601.22238 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    T.-H. Yeh, K. A. Olive, B. D. Fields, E. Aver, R. W. Pogge, N. S. J. Rogers, E. D. Skillman, and M. K. Weller, (2026), arXiv:2601.22239 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Blanco, M

    C. Blanco, M. S. Delos, A. L. Erickcek, and D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D100, 103010 (2019), arXiv:1906.00010 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Barenboim, N

    G. Barenboim, N. Blinov, and A. Stebbins, JCAP12, 026 (2021), arXiv:2107.10293 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Ganjoo and M

    H. Ganjoo and M. S. Delos, JCAP05, 063 (2025), arXiv:2403.18893 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025