Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Gauge-mediation Q balls form with a broad charge distribution, not a single mass, and the peak charge scales as the fourth power of the initial field amplitude.

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

2026-08-04 08:41 UTC pith:52K5USXD

load-bearing objection First 3D lattice charge distribution for gauge-mediation Q balls is a real contribution, but the cosmological constraints rest on an unmeasured low-charge tail. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2510.19275 v2 pith:52K5USXD submitted 2025-10-22 hep-ph astro-ph.CO

Charge distribution of the gauge-mediation type Q ball

Shinta Kasuya , Masahiro Kawasaki This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.CO
keywords Q ballsgauge mediationcharge distributionAffleck-Dine mechanismdark matterbig bang nucleosynthesis511 keV gamma rayslattice simulation
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.

Q balls are stable scalar-field lumps carrying a conserved charge such as baryon or lepton number. Using three-dimensional lattice simulations, this paper obtains the first broad charge distribution for gauge-mediation type Q balls formed in the logarithmic square potential. It finds that the number of Q balls per logarithmic charge interval, weighted by Q^{3/4}, is fit by α Q^{0.5} exp(−κ Q^2) with κ = 2.7×10^8 and α = 70.7, and that the peak charge scales as Q_peak = 3×10^{-5} (φ0/M_F)^4. Because the distribution is broad, a single Affleck-Dine flat direction produces both stable and unstable Q balls simultaneously. The paper then shows that stable B balls can be dark matter without spoiling big bang nucleosynthesis, but cannot also explain the baryon asymmetry, while large L balls can be dark matter with the decay of smaller L balls staying below X-ray and 511-keV gamma-ray limits. The upshot is that Q-ball populations should not be treated as monochromatic when deriving cosmological constraints.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in the logarithmic square potential of gauge-mediated supersymmetry breaking, Q balls produced by the Affleck-Dine mechanism do not have a single charge; their charge distribution is broad and quantitatively captured by N~(Q~)Q~^{3/4} = α Q~^{0.5} exp(−κ Q~^2), with κ = 2.7×10^8 and α = 70.7, normalized over all charges. The peak of the distribution lies at Q_peak = β'(φ0/M_F)^4 with β' = 3×10^{-5}, notably smaller than the mean charge of the largest tens of Q balls used in earlier estimates. If this is right, stable and unstable Q balls coexist, and cosmological and astrophysical constraints—BBN, dark matter, 511-keV gamma rays, X-rays—must be evaluated by

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized charge distribution function N~(Q~)Q~^{3/4} = α Q~^{0.5} exp(−κ Q~^2), where Q~ = Q/φ0^4 is the charge normalized by the fourth power of the initial field amplitude and N~(Q~) is the number of Q balls per logarithmic charge interval. This fitting function carries the argument: it converts the lattice output into an analytic form whose integrals over the low- and high-charge tails feed directly into the BBN, dark-matter, and 511-keV constraints. The peak-charge scaling Q_peak = β'(φ0/M_F)^4 links simulation parameters to physical mass scales.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusions depend on the fitted charge distribution remaining valid for charges far below the smallest Q balls the lattice resolves, since the B-ball and L-ball constraints integrate over that low-charge tail.

What would settle it

Run a higher-resolution lattice simulation that resolves Q balls with normalized charges below the current low-resolution cutoff and compare the measured N~(Q~)Q~^{3/4} to α Q~^{0.5} exp(−κ Q~^2); if the low-charge slope or the cutoff deviates, the BBN and 511-keV constraints based on the extrapolated tail must be revised.

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

If this is right

  • Q-ball dark-matter abundance must be computed by integrating the distribution above the stability threshold, not by assuming all Q balls share one charge.
  • In the B-ball sector, stable B balls can make up dark matter without spoiling BBN, but the same flat direction cannot supply the observed baryon asymmetry.
  • In the L-ball sector, large L balls can be dark matter while smaller L balls decay; the resulting positron flux stays below 511-keV and X-ray bounds for MF ≲ 10^6 GeV.
  • The peak charge scaling Q_peak ∝ (φ0/M_F)^4 gives a direct relation between the initial field amplitude and the Q-ball mass scale.
  • A single flat direction can no longer be treated as producing a monochromatic Q-ball population in cosmological studies.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: Because the fit excludes small-charge Q balls due to resolution, the low-charge tail of the distribution is an extrapolation; if the true slope at low Q~ differs from Q~^{0.5}, the BBN and 511-keV constraints computed by integrating that tail could shift by orders of magnitude.
  • Inference: The same fitting ansatz could be tested against gravity-mediation type Q balls or other flat-direction potentials; if the exponential cutoff is generic, then 'monochromatic' estimates in the literature systematically overestimate the peak charge.
  • Inference: A higher-resolution simulation that resolves charges below about 0.01 Q_peak would directly settle whether the extrapolated tail is correct and would sharpen the allowed MF–φ0 region.

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

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents 3D lattice simulations of Q-ball formation in the logarithmic square potential that approximates the gauge-mediation potential. The authors obtain a broad charge distribution for the formed Q balls, fit it with the form N~(Q~)Q~^{3/4}=αQ~^n exp(-κQ~^2) with n=0.5, κ=2.7×10^8, and α=70.7 (Eq. 17), and find a peak-charge scaling Q=β'(φ0/MF)^4 with β'=3×10^-5 (Eq. 19). They then use this distribution to analyze cosmological consequences for B balls and L balls: stable B balls can be dark matter without spoiling BBN by the decay of unstable B balls, but the baryon asymmetry cannot be explained by a single flat direction; large L balls can be dark matter while smaller L balls decay, with the resulting 511-keV and X-ray fluxes below current constraints.

Significance. If correct, the broad charge distribution is an important step beyond the standard monochromatic Q-ball assumption, with direct consequences for dark matter, BBN, and gamma-ray constraints. The numerical simulation covers a range of initial amplitudes and provides a concrete fitting function and a peak-charge scaling law. However, the quantitative cosmological conclusions in Sec. IV rely on the unresolved low-charge tail of the distribution and on extrapolating a single-mass-scale simulation to the full parameter space of gauge mediation. The qualitative message—that the distribution is broad and that both stable and unstable Q balls coexist—is supported by the resolved data, but the specific constraints are not yet robust.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III after Eq. (18)] The fitting formula (17) is applied only to Q balls above a resolution cutoff; the text explicitly states that smaller charges are not included in the fit 'due to low resolutions.' Nevertheless, Eq. (28) integrates from Q~=0 to Q~cr≈2.6×10^-14, and Eqs. (35) and (42) integrate from Q~dec=7.5×10^-17 and 3.9×10^-10, values far below the smallest resolved charges. These integrals are dominated by the unmeasured power-law tail f(Q~)∝Q~^{1/2}. Moreover, α=70.7 is fixed by normalizing the fit over the whole Q range (Eq. 18), so even the inferred dark-matter fraction depends on the assumed low-Q behavior. A resolution/convergence study of the small-charge population, or a conservative treatment that excludes the unresolved region, is required before the BBN and 511-keV constraints can be considered quantitative.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (13)] The simulation sets all mass parameters equal: m_φ=2m, M_F=m, M_S=m. The physical gauge-mediation potential contains independent scales M_F and M_S, and the dynamics of fragmentation may depend on their ratios. The paper applies the same distribution to models with M_F varying from 4×10^4 GeV to above 10^6 GeV (Sec. IV) without demonstrating that the distribution shape and the coefficient β' are independent of M_F/M_S and M_F/m_φ. A scaling argument or additional simulations with different mass ratios are needed to justify this extrapolation.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (15)] The initial fluctuation amplitude Δ is fixed at O(10^-7) with no variation across the simulations. Since Q-ball formation is seeded by these fluctuations, the resulting charge distribution could depend on their amplitude, which is a free parameter set by the inflationary scale. The robustness of the distribution to the fluctuation amplitude should be checked before the result is applied to generic inflationary models.
  4. [Eq. (17) and Fig. 3] The fit parameters n=0.5 and κ=2.7×10^8 are quoted without uncertainties or a goodness-of-fit measure. It is not stated whether n is fitted or fixed a priori. Because the low-Q power-law index n controls all subsequent integrals (e.g., Eq. (28)), the sensitivity of the cosmological constraints to n should be quantified. A small change in n could easily change the derived bounds by orders of magnitude.
  5. [Sec. III, Fig. 4] The peak-charge relation (19) is validated only for φ0/m in the range 10^3 to 5×10^4, a span of roughly 1.7 decades. The cosmological applications in Sec. IV use φ0 up to φmax≈0.64M_P, i.e., φ0/M_F as large as ~10^13, where the logarithmic term in the potential is very different. The universal distribution obtained at small φ0 is assumed to persist over this enormous range without a theoretical argument or numerical evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The axis label reads 'N(Q) Q3/4' without tildes, while the text uses tildes for normalized quantities. Unify the notation for clarity.
  2. [Title page] The date reads 'Octoberr 22, 2025' — typo. Also 'compered' in the Introduction should be 'compared.'
  3. [Eq. (15)] The expression for τinit is introduced without derivation or explanation of its dimensionless form. Please clarify how it is obtained.
  4. [Eqs. (27)-(28)] The notation for the decayed Q-ball density changes between ρ_Q^(decay)/ρ_DM in Eq. (27) and ρ_Q^(decay)/ρ_DM^Q in Eq. (28). These appear to refer to the same quantity; use consistent notation.
  5. [Sec. IV] The paper would benefit from a display of the simulation data points overlaid with the fitting function and the resolution cutoff, so readers can directly see the region that is extrapolated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular reduction: the central distribution is a lattice fit, and the cosmological constraints are conditional applications of that fit to external bounds; the small-charge extrapolation is a caveat, not a circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central new result is the charge distribution fitted in Eq. (17) to 3D lattice data (Fig. 3). This is an empirical fit, not a quantity defined in terms of the paper's conclusions; α=70.7 is fixed by the normalization integral (18), and β'=3×10^-5 is read off the peak of the same fitted distribution. The subsequent cosmological statements integrate this fitted distribution against external constraints (BBN bound, observed DM density, 511-keV and X-ray limits), so they are conditional applications rather than circular derivations. The Q-ball mass, radius, decay rate, and stability conditions are taken from previous published derivations with stated assumptions; the self-citations among these are not used as unverified uniqueness theorems or to forbid alternatives. The one significant caveat is explicitly admitted in the paper: "Notice that those Q balls with smaller charges are not included for the fit due to low resolutions" (Sec. III, after Eq. 18). Because Eqs. (28), (35), (42), and (49) integrate the fitted form down to charges far below the resolved range (e.g. Qtilde_cr~2.6e-14 and Qtilde_dec~7.5e-17), the quantitative B-ball and L-ball conclusions depend on an unvalidated extrapolation of f(Q)∝Q^0.5. That is a robustness/validity concern, not a circularity: none of the predicted constraints were used to construct the fit, and the paper does not present the fit as an independent prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The simulation reveals a broad distribution, but every quantitative statement about its consequences is tied to the fitted parameters and to the extrapolation of the fit to unresolved small charges. The simplification of all mass scales to a single m and the adopted ζ and ξ values also carry uncertainty into the final MF windows.

free parameters (7)
  • β' (peak-charge coefficient) = 3×10^-5
    Fitted to the peak charges in Fig. 4/Eq. (19); sets the peak of the distribution and enters most cosmological constraints.
  • n (distribution power) = 0.5
    Free exponent in fitting formula Eq. (17), chosen to match resolved data.
  • κ (cutoff coefficient) = 2.7×10^8
    Free coefficient in Eq. (17), fitted to resolved data; controls the high-Q cutoff of the distribution.
  • α (normalization) = 70.7
    Determined by the integral constraint Eq. (18); depends on n and κ, so it is not independent but is part of the fitted representation.
  • initial fluctuation amplitude Δ = O(10^-7) relative to homogeneous mode
    Set by hand in Eq. (15) as quantum fluctuations from inflation; no derivation or variation study is given.
  • ξ in φ_eq estimate = 45
    Taken from the previous numerical fit Eq. (8) and simplified to 45 for convenience; enters φmax and the MF range in L-ball constraints.
  • ζ in Q-ball mass/radius formulas = 5
    Adopted from prior literature; enters the decay rate and QD, affecting all cosmological constraints.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Simulation with a single mass scale m (mφ=2m, MF=m, MS=m) captures the physical parameter dependence for general MF, MS.
    Eq. (13) and the text 'we set for numerical feasibility'; the cosmological extrapolation assumes no important mass-scale dependence of the distribution shape.
  • ad hoc to paper The fitted distribution Eq. (17) remains valid below the charge range resolved by the simulation.
    Used in integrals for cosmological constraints, although the paper states small-charge Q balls were excluded from the fit due to low resolution.
  • domain assumption The Q-ball stability criterion ωQ < b mN and decay rate ΓQ ≃ (√2π²ζ/3) MF Q^-5/4 from the literature apply to the simulated Q balls.
    Sec. IV A, Eqs. (22)-(24); standard results borrowed from earlier published work.
  • domain assumption The BBN constraint ρ_Q^(decay)/s ≲ 10^-14 GeV and the 511-keV flux bounds are applicable.
    Sec. IV, Eq. (26) and App. A; these are observational constraints treated as fixed external inputs.
  • domain assumption Standard background cosmology (matter domination, Hubble rate at onset of oscillation) is assumed.
    Sec. III, initial time t_init = 2/(3H_osc); standard Friedmann evolution.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11562 in / 13445 out tokens · 116596 ms · 2026-08-04T08:41:48.560978+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We numerically study the formation of the gauge-mediation type Q balls in the logarithmic square potential on three-dimensional lattices. We obtain the broad charge distribution of the Q ball of this type for the first time, to the best of our knowledge. The charge of the Q ball at the peak of the distribution is smaller than what we estimated as the average of the largest tens of the Q balls in the logarithmic potential for the same initial amplitude of the field at the onset of its oscillation. We also discuss some impacts of the broad distribution on cosmology and astrophysics. In the B ball (Q being the baryon number) case, the broad distribution would lead to the coexistence of both stable and unstable B balls. We find that stable B balls can account for the dark matter of the universe without affecting successful big bang nucleosynthesis by the decay of the unstable B balls, but the baryon number of the universe cannot be explained by them. On the other hand, the large L balls (Q being the lepton number) would be the dark matter as well while avoiding the constraints on the X and/or gamma rays from the decay of the smaller L balls.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.19275 by Masahiro Kawasaki, Shinta Kasuya.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Evolution of the homogeneous modes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Normalized charge distribution of the Q balls. Thick [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Formed Q balls in three-dimensional lattices with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Peak charge of the Q balls. Also shown is the relation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Sketches of monochromatic and broad distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Charges of the Q ball which is stable against the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Charge of the Q ball at the formation (19) and that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Sketches of monochromatic and broad distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Charges of the Q balls which decay at present (32) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Same as in Fig. 9. Also shown in dashed magenta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Same as in Fig. 9. Also shown is the charge of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Reviving the Affleck-Dine Curvaton Scenario with Compensated Isocurvature Perturbations

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    The Affleck-Dine field can act as both baryogenesis engine and curvaton if gravitino dark matter, produced before curvaton decay, supplies the compensating isocurvature perturbation that hides the baryon isocurvature ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    #$%&'&()*&+

    Q3/4 is multiplied because one can locate the peak charge of the Q balls which dominate the energy density. See Eq.(10). We normalize the distri- bution function so as to give unity when it is integrated over the whole charge. We adopt the fitting formula of the form ˜N ( ˜Q) ˜Q3/4 = α ˜Qn exp ( −κ ˜Q2 ) , (17) with n = 0 .5 and κ = 2 .7 × 108, and α is de...

  2. [2]

    In this case, the L balls decay into νµνe ¯νe in the first place

    ˜νµ˜e−˜e+ direction with φ0 = φmax Let us consider the simplest example where LiLjek = ˜νµ˜e−˜e+. In this case, the L balls decay into νµνe ¯νe in the first place. As the charge decreases, the decay channel into e− and e+ opens when ωQ becomes larger than the electron (positron) mass me. This happens when Q < Q e+ ≡ ( √ 2πζM F me ) 4 = 9.1×1036 ( MF 4 × 10...

  3. [3]

    The Q balls decay into ντ νµ ¯νe in the first place

    ˜ντ ˜µ−˜e+ direction with φ0 = φmax Now we move on to the case of LiLjek = ˜ντ ˜µ−˜e+. The Q balls decay into ντ νµ ¯νe in the first place. However, positrons cannot be produced until the decay channel into muons opens, since the decay products would be ντ µ−e+. In this case, the charge fraction that creates positrons will be smaller, which leads that the ...

  4. [4]

    Now let us investigate the case of smaller initial amplitude of the field

    ˜ντ ˜µ− ˜e+ direction with smaller φ0 So far we set φ0 = φmax. Now let us investigate the case of smaller initial amplitude of the field. This is re- alized for smaller MF , as can be seen in Fig. 11. Smaller positron fraction is compensated by smaller fraction of the dark matter Q balls. The Q-ball charges at the formation, which decay at present, and whe...

  5. [5]

    S. R. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B 262, no.2, 263 (1985)

    1985

  6. [6]

    Kusenko, Phys

    A. Kusenko, Phys. Lett. B 405, 108 (1997)

    1997

  7. [7]

    Kusenko and M

    A. Kusenko and M. E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 418, 46-54 (1998)

    1998

  8. [8]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D 64, 123515 (2001)

    2001

  9. [9]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2677- 2680 (2000)

    2000

  10. [10]

    Kasuya and F

    S. Kasuya and F. Takahashi, JCAP 11, 019 (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    Kasuya and F

    S. Kasuya and F. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D 72, 085015 (2005)

    2005

  12. [12]

    Kasuya, M

    S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and N. Tsuji, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.8, 083039 (2024)

    2024

  13. [13]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D 61, 041301 (2000)

    2000

  14. [14]

    Hiramatsu, M

    T. Hiramatsu, M. Kawasaki and F. Takahashi, JCAP 06, 008 (2010)

    2010

  15. [15]

    Kasuya, Phys

    S. Kasuya, Phys. Rev. D 81, 083507 (2010)

    2010

  16. [16]

    de Gouvea, T

    A. de Gouvea, T. Moroi and H. Murayama, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1281-1299 (1997)

    1997

  17. [17]

    Gherghetta, C

    T. Gherghetta, C. F. Kolda and S. P. Martin, Nucl. Phys. B 468, 37-58 (1996)

    1996

  18. [18]

    M. Dine, L. Randall and S. D. Thomas, Nucl. Phys. B 458, 291-326 (1996)

    1996

  19. [19]

    Kasuya, M

    S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and T. T. Yanagida, PTEP 2015, no.5, 053B02 (2015)

    2015

  20. [20]

    Hisano, M

    J. Hisano, M. M. Nojiri and N. Okada, Phys. Rev. D 64, 023511 (2001)

    2001

  21. [21]

    Kasuya, M

    S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B 726, 1-7 (2013)

    2013

  22. [22]

    Kasai, M

    K. Kasai, M. Kawasaki and K. Murai, JCAP 08, 008 (2024)

    2024

  23. [23]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D 84, 123528 (2011)

    2011

  24. [24]

    Kasuya and M

    S. Kasuya and M. Kawasaki, Phys. Rev. D 89, no.10, 103534 (2014)

    2014

  25. [25]

    A. G. Cohen, S. R. Coleman, H. Georgi and A. Manohar, Nucl. Phys. B 272, 301-321 (1986)

    1986

  26. [26]

    Kawasaki and M

    M. Kawasaki and M. Yamada, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.2, 023517 (2013)

    2013

  27. [27]

    Kamada, M

    A. Kamada, M. Kawasaki and M. Yamada, Phys. Lett. B 719, 9-13 (2013)

    2013

  28. [28]

    Kawasaki, K

    M. Kawasaki, K. Kohri, T. Moroi and Y. Takaesu, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.2, 023502 (2018)

    2018

  29. [29]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020) [erratum: Astron. Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)]

    2020

  30. [30]

    Cirelli, N

    M. Cirelli, N. Fornengo, J. Koechler, E. Pinetti and B. M. Roach, JCAP 07, 026 (2023) [erratum: JCAP 08, E02 (2025)]

    2023

  31. [31]

    Hooper and L

    D. Hooper and L. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 70, 063506 (2004)

    2004

  32. [32]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk and S. D. M. White, Astro- phys. J. 462, 563-575 (1996)

    1996

  33. [33]

    Kasuya, M

    S. Kasuya, M. Kawasaki and K. Murai, JCAP 05, 053 (2023)

    2023