Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Energy, Momentum and Angular Momentum Transfer Between Electrons and Nuclei

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Exact subsystem Ehrenfest identities trace electron–nuclear momentum, angular momentum, and kinetic-energy transfer to a single effective electromagnetic force operator.

desk verdict Solid formal contribution: exact momentum and angular momentum IEIs, plus a kinetic-energy identity for \tilde T_n that the abstract overstates. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04077 v2 pith:BVTPVKKE submitted 2019-08-12 physics.chem-ph

Chen Li , Ryan Requist , E. K. U. Gross This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.chem-ph PACS 31.15.E71.10.-w71.15.Mb
keywords exactfactorizationsubsystemEhrenfestidentitieselectron-nuclearmomentumtransferBerrycurvaturenonadiabaticdynamicseffectiveelectromagneticforcenuclearkineticenergyelectron-phonon
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 establishes exact equations of motion for the nuclear momentum, angular momentum, and the nuclear kinetic energy $\tilde T_n$ obtained from the exact-factorization marginal wave function. Working from the nuclear Schrödinger equation supplied by the exact factorization of the electron–nuclear wave function, it shows that all three rates are governed by one effective electromagnetic force operator: $d\mathbf P_\mu/dt = \mathrm{Re}\langle\chi|\hat{\bar{\mathbf F}}_\mu|\chi\rangle$, $d\mathbf L_\mu/dt = \mathrm{Re}\langle\chi|\mathbf R_\mu\times\hat{\bar{\mathbf F}}_\mu|\chi\rangle$, and $d\tilde T_n/dt = \mathrm{Re}\langle\chi|\sum_\mu \hat{\bar{\mathbf F}}_\mu\cdot\hat{\mathbf v}_\mu|\chi\rangle$. The force operator contains an electric part from the time-dependent scalar and vector potentials, a magnetic part from the intranuclear Berry curvature, and a purely quantum internuclear magnetic force with no classical analog. These identities give a compact, classical-looking language for quantifying how much energy and momentum electrons deposit into nuclei, which matters for electron–phonon relaxation, current-induced forces, and molecular-scale heat transfer. The paper verifies the identities in an exactly solvable two-nucleus model with nonzero internuclear Berry curvature.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective electromagnetic force operator $\hat{\bar{\mathbf F}}_\mu$ built from the exact-factorization potentials. Its electric field $\mathbf E_\mu$ combines the scalar-potential gradient with the time derivative of the vector potential; its magnetic field is the intranuclear Berry curvature $C^{G'G}_{\mu\mu} = \partial_{G'_\mu}A_{G\mu}-\partial_{G\mu}A_{G'_\mu}$, which enters as $\mathbf B_\mu\times\hat{\mathbf v}_\mu$; and $\hat{\mathbf D}_\mu$ collects the internuclear Berry curvatures $C^{G'G}_{\nu\mu}$ between different nuclei. Promoting the velocities in a trajectory-based force function to operators reproduces $\hat{\bar{\mathbf F}}_\mu$, so the identities connect the operator picture with the trajectory picture.

What would settle it

Take a two-nucleus model in which the nuclear wave packet $\chi$ develops a nodal line while the vector potentials remain smooth, compute $d\mathbf P_1/dt$ directly from the time-dependent $\chi$, and compare it with $\mathrm{Re}\langle\chi|\hat{\bar{\mathbf F}}_1|\chi\rangle$; any nonzero difference would show that the discarded surface terms do not vanish and would refute Eq. (26) in that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the exact nuclear Schrödinger equation of exact factorization, $i\partial_t\chi = [\sum_\mu (1/2M_\mu)(-i\nabla_{\mathbf R_\mu}+\mathbf A_\mu)^2+\epsilon]\chi$, already contains all electronic back-reaction in the form of an effective electromagnetic field. Replacing the full wave function with the marginal nuclear wave function $\chi$ preserves the exact nuclear momentum and angular momentum, and their time derivatives equal expectation values of a single effective force operator $\hat{\bar{\mathbf F}}_\mu = \mathbf E_\mu + \mathbf B_\mu\times\hat{\mathbf v}_\mu + \hat{\mathbf D}_\mu$, where $\mathbf E_\mu = \partial_t\mathbf A_\mu - \nabla_{\mathbf R_\mu}\epsilon$, $\mathbf B_\mu$ is the intranuclear Berry curvature, and $\hat{\mathbf D}_\mu$ is the internuclear Berry-curvature force. The same operator appears in the identities for momentum, angular momentum, and total nuclear kinetic energy; the magnetic parts do no net work. The internuclear term transfers momentum between individual nuclei but cancels in the total, so it has no classical analog.

Load-bearing premise

The derivations assume the exact-factorization vector and scalar potentials are smooth enough that all boundary terms from integrations by parts vanish, which may fail where the nuclear wave function has nodes or the conditional electronic wave function becomes singular.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The identities give a direct way to quantify energy transfer in electron–phonon systems, which the paper highlights as a primary application.
  • Nuclear momentum and angular momentum can be extracted exactly from the marginal nuclear wave function alone, without the full electron–nuclear wave function.
  • Intranuclear magnetic forces do no work, and the internuclear contributions cancel in the total nuclear kinetic energy while still redistributing momentum among individual nuclei.
  • Approximate factorizations based on adiabatic states yield the same inter-subsystem Ehrenfest identities for approximate quantities, extending the results beyond exact factorization.
  • The expectation value of the force operator can be evaluated by replacing it with the corresponding classical force function, linking these identities to trajectory-based nonadiabatic dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • In molecular transport or laser-driven dynamics, these identities could decompose electronic energy loss into per-nucleus electric and magnetic channels, separating ordinary Joule-like heating from geometric-phase forces.
  • The internuclear Berry-curvature term implies a testable prediction: momentum can appear to pass between two nuclei without any direct nuclear–nuclear force, mediated entirely by the electronic subsystem.
  • Because the paper's model has constant internuclear Berry curvature, an immediate next step is to test the identities in a model with spatially varying curvature, where the individual-nucleus kinetic-energy correction operator $\hat G_\mu$ no longer vanishes.
  • The same derivation should carry over to multicomponent mixtures or exciton–phonon systems, since only the TDSE form of the subsystem Hamiltonian is used.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives three inter-subsystem Ehrenfest identities from the exact-factorization nuclear time-dependent Schrödinger equation: one for the nuclear momentum of each nucleus, Eq. (26); one for the nuclear angular momentum, Eq. (27); and one for the total nuclear kinetic energy, Eq. (28). The central structural claim is that a single effective electromagnetic force operator F̂_μ = E_μ + B_μ × v̂_μ + D̂_μ, built from the exact-factorization scalar and vector potentials and their Berry curvatures, appears in all three identities. The authors also introduce a decomposition of the magnetic contribution into an intranuclear (classical Lorentz-like) term and an internuclear term with no classical analog, and they illustrate the momentum and energy identities with a two-nucleus one-dimensional model with analytically constructed potentials.

Significance. If the identities are correct as stated, they provide a compact, representation-independent characterization of momentum, angular momentum, and kinetic-energy exchange between electrons and nuclei in the exact-factorization framework, and they unify previously known trajectory-based force expressions with operator identities. The momentum and angular momentum identities (26) and (27) are well supported by the algebraic derivations and are a useful contribution. The energy identity, however, is exact only for the auxiliary quantity T̃_n = T_n − E_geo, not for the true nuclear kinetic energy T_n, so the manuscript's headline claim that it characterizes energy transfer between electrons and nuclei is not yet established. The numerical example is a consistency check on the algebra rather than a test of the energy-transfer interpretation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (6) and Eq. (28)] The energy IEI, Eq. (28), governs T̃_n, not the exact nuclear kinetic energy T_n. As the authors note in Eq. (6), T_n = T̃_n + E_geo, with E_geo defined in Eq. (9), yet no formula for dE_geo/dt is provided and no quantitative estimate of its size is given; the only support for neglecting it is Ref. [36], a personal communication stating that E_geo is 'small in many cases'. Consequently, the abstract and title claims about energy transfer between electrons and nuclei are not supported for the exact T_n. The momentum and angular momentum identities are unaffected because P_n and L_n have no E_geo-type correction, but the energy identity must either be derived for T_n or the claims must be explicitly restricted to T̃_n with a clearly stated caveat.
  2. [Eqs. (5), (10)–(13) and the associated integration by parts] The derivations assume that the exact-factorization potentials A_μ(R,t) and ϵ(R,t) are sufficiently smooth and that all boundary terms from integration by parts vanish. This assumption enters directly in the commutator algebra leading to Eqs. (10)–(13), (20), and the angular momentum derivation in the SI. It is not justified at nuclear configurations where χ has nodes or where the conditional electronic wavefunction Φ_R becomes singular, as can occur, for example, at conical intersections. Since all three identities rely on this assumption, the paper should either state the precise regularity conditions under which the identities hold or show that the identities extend to distributional settings with appropriate boundary-term cancellations.
  3. [Exactly solvable model, Eqs. (29)–(34) and Fig. 1] The numerical example contains no electronic degrees of freedom: it is a two-nucleus, one-dimensional model in which a Gaussian χ is prescribed and potentials A_1, A_2, and ϵ are reverse-engineered through Eqs. (31)–(34). The model therefore cannot calibrate the magnitude of E_geo or of dE_geo/dt in a real molecule, and it cannot demonstrate electron–nuclear energy transfer; it only verifies the internal algebraic consistency of the identities for a constructed χ. The caption and text present this as a validation of the IEIs, which is fair for the momentum identity, but the strength of the claim should be adjusted so that this example is not read as empirical or physical support for the energy-transfer interpretation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The title and abstract contain a typographical spacing error in 'Ele ctrons'; this should be corrected.
  2. [Ref. [36]] The claim that E_geo is 'small in many cases' is supported only by a personal communication. Since this statement is now load-bearing for the energy identity, the authors should provide a published quantitative example or a derivation of a bound, rather than an unreferenced private communication.
  3. [SI, Section I.D, Eq. (S54)] The text introducing the operator Ĝ_μ states 'Derivation is omitted.' Because Ĝ_μ is used to explain why the individual-nucleus kinetic energy does not satisfy the simple IEI, the derivation (or a citation to a published derivation) should be included or the remark should be marked as a conjecture.
  4. [SI, Section III.A] The statement that the angular-momentum IEI has been 'verified numerically (results not shown)' is a claim of verification without supporting data; either include the figure or describe the verification procedure in enough detail for the reader to reproduce it.
  5. [Eq. (31)] The expression for ϵ in Eq. (31) is obtained by taking the real part of Eq. (29) and dividing by χ, which requires χ ≠ 0; the text should note that this construction is valid only where χ is nonzero, consistent with the smoothness assumptions flagged in the major comments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the inter-subsystem Ehrenfest identities are commutator consequences of the exact-factorization nuclear TDSE, and the numerical model is an acknowledged reverse-engineered consistency check.

full rationale

The derivation starts from Eq. (5), the exact-factorization nuclear TDSE, which is prior published work ([29]-[32]); relying on it is standard external support, not a circular input, because the factorization theorem is not derived from the target identities. Equations (10)-(28) are obtained by applying the Heisenberg equation of motion and evaluating commutators; the force operator is assembled from the terms that emerge (E_mu, B_mu x v_mu, D_mu), rather than fitted so as to force the equality. No parameter is calibrated to data and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The two-nucleus model is explicitly constructed by choosing chi and solving for A and epsilon (Eqs. (29)-(34), SI III A), so its numerical agreement with the IEIs is a consistency check, not an independent test. The self-citations to earlier exact-factorization work are to published, independently checkable results, not to a uniqueness theorem used to forbid alternatives. The only substantive weakness is interpretive and not circular: Eq. (28) governs d\tilde T_n/dt with \tilde T_n = T_n - E_geo (Eqs. (6), (9)), and the paper gives no formula or estimate for dE_geo/dt, relying instead on a personal communication ([36]) that E_geo is small; this is an unsupported scope/approximation concern. Likewise, the SI omits the derivation of \hat G_mu (Eq. S54). These gaps bear on correctness and completeness but do not make the central derivation equivalent to its inputs.

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

The central formal result rests on the exact-factorization TDSE and standard operator algebra; the only hand-picked numbers appear in the illustrative model and do not enter the identities. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Model nuclear mass M = 2000 m_e
    Chosen as roughly the hydrogen atom mass for the demonstration; not fitted.
  • Model length scale a0 = 1 Bohr
    Sets the amplitude of the model trajectory; arbitrary.
  • Trajectory g1(t), g2(t) = a0(cos(t/sqrt(M))+2), a0(sin(2t/sqrt(M))-2)
    Chosen by hand so the Gaussian packet moves; the IEI is independent of this choice.
  • Auxiliary function C1(t) in SI Eq. (S87) = 1
    Set to 1 to fix one admissible form of the vector potentials; nonunique.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Exact-factorization nuclear TDSE (Eq. 5) with scalar potential epsilon and vector potentials A_mu is an exact reformulation of the full electron-nuclear TDSE.
    Invoked as the starting point; established in Refs [29-32].
  • ad hoc to paper A_mu and epsilon are smooth enough for commutator algebra and integration by parts with boundary terms neglected.
    Used in Eqs. (10)-(13) without discussion of singularities at nodes of chi or degeneracies.
  • ad hoc to paper E_geo is small in many cases, so T_tilde_n approximately equals T_n.
    Underpins the interpretation of the kinetic energy IEI as energy transfer; supported only by Ref [36], an unpublished personal communication.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Energy, Momentum and Angular Momentum Transfer Between Electrons and Nuclei." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BVTPVKKE

@misc{pith2026190804077,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Energy, Momentum and Angular Momentum Transfer Between Electrons and Nuclei},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BVTPVKKE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04077}
}
read the original abstract

The recently developed exact factorization approach condenses all electronic effects on the nuclear subsystem into scalar and vector potentials that appear in an effective time dependent Schr\"{o}dinger equation. Starting from this equation, we derive subsystem Ehrenfest identities characterizing the energy, momentum and angular momentum transfer between electrons and nuclei. An effective electromagnetic force operator induced by the electromagnetic field corresponding to the effective scalar and vector potentials appears in all three identities. The effective magnetic field has two components that can be identified with the Berry curvature calculated with (a) different cartesian coordinates of the same nucleus and (b) arbitrary cartesian coordinates of two different nuclei. (a) has a classical interpretation as the induced magnetic field felt by the nucleus, while (b) has no classical analog. Subsystem Ehrenfest identities are ideally suited for quantifying energy transfer in electron-phonon systems. With two explicit examples we demonstrate the usefulness of the new identities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04077 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Trajectory of the center of the nuclear [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    personal communication

    Baer, R. personal communication

    work page

  2. [1]

    Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik1927, 45(7), 455–457

    Ehrenfest, P. Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik1927, 45(7), 455–457

    work page

  3. [2]

    The Ehrenfest Theorems

    Gilmore, R. Lecture note on “The Ehrenfest Theorems” 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [3]

    L.; Peon, J.; Kohler, B

    Pecourt, J.-M. L.; Peon, J.; Kohler, B. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123(42), 10370–10378

    work page 2001

  5. [4]

    Peon, J.; Zewail, A. H. Chem. phys. lett. 2001, 348(3-4), 255–262

    work page 2001

  6. [5]

    Anisimov, S.; Kapeliovich, B.; Perelman, T. Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 1974, 66(2), 375–377

    work page 1974

  7. [6]

    Allen, P. B. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1987, 59, 1460–1463

    work page 1987

  8. [7]

    Waldecker, L.; Bertoni, R.; Ernstorfer, R.; Vorberger, J. Phys. Rev. X 2016, 6, 021003

    work page 2016

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    J.; Askerka, M.; Batista, V

    Maurer, R. J.; Askerka, M.; Batista, V. S.; Tully, J. C. Phys. Rev. B 2016, 94, 115432. 6

    2016

  2. [9]

    Hopjan, M.; Stefanucci, G.; Perfetto, E.; Verdozzi, C. Phys. Rev. B 2018, 98, 041405

    2018

  3. [10]

    Zewail, A. H. J. Phys. Chem. A 2000, 104(24), 5660– 5694

    2000

  4. [11]

    Martinez, T.; Ben-Nun, M.; Levine, R. J. Phys. Chem. A 1997, 101(36), 6389–6402

    1997

  5. [12]

    C.; Preston, R

    Tully, J. C.; Preston, R. K. J. Chem. Phys. 1971, 55(2), 562–572

    1971

  6. [13]

    Heat release in fires; Taylor & Francis, 1990

    Babrauskas, V.; Grayson, S. Heat release in fires; Taylor & Francis, 1990

    1990

  7. [14]

    Combustion, flames and explosions of gases; Elsevier, 2012

    Lewis, B.; Von Elbe, G. Combustion, flames and explosions of gases; Elsevier, 2012

    2012

  8. [15]

    J¨ ulicher, F.; Ajdari, A.; Prost, J. Rev. Mod. Phys. 1997, 69(4), 1269

    1997

  9. [16]

    R.; Leigh, D

    Kay, E. R.; Leigh, D. A.; Zerbetto, F. Angew. Chem. 2007, 46(1-2), 72–191

    2007

  10. [17]

    K.-C.; Stuart, M

    Chen, J.; Leung, F. K.-C.; Stuart, M. C.; Kajitani, T.; Fukushima, T.; van der Giessen, E.; Feringa, B. L. Nat. chem. 2018, 10(2), 132

    2018

  11. [18]

    H.; Qian, H

    Kim, K. H.; Qian, H. Phys. Rev. E 2007, 75, 022102

    2007

  12. [19]

    Alicki, R. J. Phys A: Math. Gen. 1979, 12(5), L103– L107

    1979

  13. [20]

    Kosloff, R. J. Chem. Phys. 1984, 80(4), 1625–1631

    1984

  14. [21]

    Entropy 2013, 15(6), 2100–2128

    Kosloff, R. Entropy 2013, 15(6), 2100–2128

    2013

  15. [22]

    Di Ventra, M.; Pantelides, S.; Lang, N. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2002, 88(4), 046801

    2002

  16. [23]

    J.; Todorov, T

    Dundas, D.; McEniry, E. J.; Todorov, T. N. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2009, 4(2), 99

    2009

  17. [24]

    N.; Dundas, D.; L, J.-T.; Brandbyge, M.; Hedeg ˚ ard, P.Euro

    Todorov, T. N.; Dundas, D.; L, J.-T.; Brandbyge, M.; Hedeg ˚ ard, P.Euro. J. Phys. 2014, 35(6), 065004

    2014

  18. [25]

    P.; Bowler, D.; Fisher, A.; Todorov, T

    Horsfield, A. P.; Bowler, D.; Fisher, A.; Todorov, T. N.; Montgomery, M. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 2004, 16(21), 3609

    2004

  19. [26]

    P.; Bowler, D.; Ness, H.; S´ anchez, C.; Todorov, T

    Horsfield, A. P.; Bowler, D.; Ness, H.; S´ anchez, C.; Todorov, T. N.; Fisher, A. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2006, 69(4), 1195

    2006

  20. [27]

    X.; Anoma, M

    Zhu, L.; Raman, A.; Wang, K. X.; Anoma, M. A.; Fan, S. Optica 2014, 1(1), 32–38

    2014

  21. [28]

    Donnert, G.; Eggeling, C.; Hell, S. W. Nature methods 2007, 4(1), 81

    2007

  22. [29]

    Hunter, G. Int. J. Quantum Chem. 1975, 9(2), 237–242

    1975

  23. [30]

    I.; Gross, E

    Gidopoulos, N. I.; Gross, E. K. U. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 2014, A 372 (2011), 20130059

    2011

  24. [31]

    T.; Gross, E

    Abedi, A.; Maitra, N. T.; Gross, E. K. U. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2010, 105, 123002

    2010

  25. [32]

    T.; Gross, E

    Abedi, A.; Maitra, N. T.; Gross, E. K. U. J. Chem. Phys. 2012, 137(22), 22A530

    2012

  26. [33]

    Berry, M. V. In Geometric Phases in Physics; World Scientific, Singapore, 1989; pages 7–28

    1989

  27. [34]

    Agostini, F.; Abedi, A.; Suzuki, Y.; Gross, E. K. U. Mol. Phys. 2013, 111(22-23), 3625–3640

    2013

  28. [35]

    K.; Maitra, N

    Agostini, F.; Abedi, A.; Suzuki, Y.; Min, S. K.; Maitra, N. T.; Gross, E. K. U. J. Chem. Phys. 2015, 142(8), 084303

    2015

  29. [40]

    K.; Abedi, A.; Gross, E

    Agostini, F.; Min, S. K.; Abedi, A.; Gross, E. K. U. Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation 2016, 12(5), 2127–2143

    2016

  30. [42]

    Agostini, F.; Tavernelli, I.; Ciccotti, G. Euro. Phys. J. B. 2018, 91(7), 139

    2018

  31. [43]

    Nevertheless, the effect of ˆD1 is only of secondary importance in our model, and much less than the electromotive force E1

    By contrast, the fact that the red curve deviates from the blue dashed curve suggests that the generalized Lorentz force is incomplete and the amount of deviation reflects the contribution of ˆD1. Nevertheless, the effect of ˆD1 is only of secondary importance in our model, and ...

  32. [44]

    exactly solvable

    See the Supplemental Material at xxx for further details . arXiv:1908.04077v1 [physics.chem-ph] 12 Aug 2019 Supporting Information of Energy, Momentum and Angular Momentum Transfer Between Electrons and Nuclei Chen Li 1, Ryan Requist 1 and E. K. U. Gross 1, 2 1Max Planck Insti...

    1908 arXiv

  33. [45]

    Abedi, A.; Agostini, F.; Gross, E. K. U. Europhys. Lett. 2014, 106(3), 33001

    2014

  34. [46]

    Agostini, F.; Abedi, A.; Gross, E. K. U. J. Chem. Phys. 2014, 141(21), 214101

    2014

  35. [47]

    K.; Agostini, F.; Gross, E

    Min, S. K.; Agostini, F.; Gross, E. K. U. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2015, 115, 073001

    2015

  36. [48]

    K.; Abedi, A.; Gross, E

    Agostini, F.; Min, S. K.; Abedi, A.; Gross, E. K. U. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2016, 12(5), 2127–2143

    2016

  37. [49]

    Curchod, B. F. E.; Agostini, F.; Tavernelli, I. Euro. Phys. J. B. 2018, 91(7), 168

    2018

  38. [50]

    Agostini, F.; Tavernelli, I.; Ciccotti, G. Euro. Phys. J. B. 2018, 91(7), 139. 16

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.