1 files changed, 4 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/topology.tex b/topology.tex
index 0edd478..fcf99c7 100644
--- a/topology.tex
+++ b/topology.tex
@@ -793,20 +793,20 @@ Finally, a common extension of the spherical spin glasses is to add a
 deterministic piece to the energy, sometimes called a signal or a spike. Recent
 work argued that gradient descent can avoid being trapped in marginal minima
 and reach the vicinity of the signal if the set of trapping marginal minima has
-been destabilized by the presence of the signal \cite{Mannelli_2019_Passed,
-Mannelli_2019_Who}. The authors of Ref.~\cite{Mannelli_2019_Who}
+been destabilized by the presence of the signal \cite{SaraoMannelli_2019_Passed,
+SaraoMannelli_2019_Who}. The authors of Ref.~\cite{SaraoMannelli_2019_Who}
 conjecture based on \textsc{dmft} data for $2+3$ mixed spherical spin glasses that the
 trapping marginal minima are those at the traditional threshold energy
 $E_\text{th}$. However, Ref.~\cite{Folena_2023_On} demonstrated that in mixed
 $p+s$ spherical spin glasses with small $p$ and $s$, the difference between
 $E_\text{th}$ and the true trapping energy is difficult to resolve with the
 current precision of \textsc{dmft} integration schemes. Therefore,
-the authors of Ref.~\cite{Mannelli_2019_Who} may have incorrectly conflated the
+the authors of Ref.~\cite{SaraoMannelli_2019_Who} may have incorrectly conflated the
 threshold with the trapping marginal minima, and that the correct set of
 marginal minima that must be destabilized to reach a signal might be the same set
 that trap dynamics in the signal-free model. This paper conjectures that the important trapping minima
 are those at the shattering energy. Comparing the predictions of
-Ref.~\cite{Mannelli_2019_Who} to \textsc{dmft} simulations of a model with
+Ref.~\cite{SaraoMannelli_2019_Who} to \textsc{dmft} simulations of a model with
 better separation between $p$ and $s$ would help resolve this issue.
 
 \section{Conclusion}