Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Nonperturbative magnetotransport from band geometry in Weyl semimetals

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read In Weyl semimetals, expanding first in magnetic field then integrating momentum misses nonanalytic transport pieces that appear when the full field dependence is kept.

desk verdict Solid closed-form nonperturbative semiclassics for Weyl magnetotransport; the noncommutativity claim is real inside their continuum setup, with the IR cutoff as the only real soft spot. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10468 v1 pith:VSADR5OJ submitted 2026-07-11 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

L. Medel Onofre , A. Martín-Ruiz This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords WeylsemimetalsmagnetotransportBerrycurvatureorbitalmagneticmomentsemiclassicalkinetictheorynonperturbativeconductivityinfraredregularization
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 builds a semiclassical theory of electrical conductivity in Weyl semimetals that keeps the full magnetic-field dependence coming from Berry curvature and the orbital magnetic moment, rather than expanding in powers of B at the start. Closed-form expressions are obtained for the isotropic and anisotropic Fermi-surface conductivities inside the regime where Landau levels can still be ignored. The continuum model is infrared-sensitive because the orbital magnetic moment diverges as 1/k; a physically motivated cutoff set by the validity of the semiclassical approximation is therefore required. Once regularized, the full conductivity tensor still reduces to the familiar quadratic magnetoconductivity, but the intermediate scalar coefficients contain nonanalytic terms. Those terms show that expanding in B before integrating over momentum is not the same as integrating first. The result points to a practical regime—low carrier density or moderate fields—where magnetotransport is intrinsically nonperturbative even inside ordinary first-order semiclassical theory.

What carries the argument

The exact Fermi-surface integrals for the isotropic and anisotropic conductivities (Eqs. 21–22), regularized by the infrared cutoff κ_IR ∼ √|λ_χ| that enforces orbital-moment corrections to remain smaller than the band energy; these closed forms encode the full B dependence of the phase-space factor, generalized velocity, and orbital-moment-shifted energy.

What would settle it

Measure the anisotropic magnetoconductivity of a low-density Weyl semimetal at moderate fields (λ_χ of order 0.1) and check whether it follows the closed nonperturbative expression (Eq. 29) rather than the conventional quadratic form; disagreement would falsify the claimed noncommutativity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Magnetic-field expansion and momentum integration do not commute for continuum Weyl fermions: exact regularized scalar transport coefficients acquire nonanalytic magnetic-field pieces (including a formally linear term in the anisotropic conductivity) that cancel when the full conductivity tensor is reconstructed, leaving the standard quadratic magnetoconductivity; hence a regime of low density or moderate B exists where the response cannot be captured by weak-field expansions.

Load-bearing premise

The continuum theory must be cut off by hand at a momentum scale set by requiring the orbital-magnetic-moment energy shift to stay small compared with the band energy; a different microscopic regularization could remove the nonanalytic pieces.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At low carrier density the effective field scale B_eff drops, so moderate laboratory fields already place the system in the nonperturbative window.
  • Anisotropic magnetoconductivity is the cleanest experimental diagnostic of the infrared-sensitive orbital-moment physics.
  • The full conductivity tensor remains quadratic in B, so transport experiments that reconstruct the entire tensor will still see the textbook result even while scalar coefficients do not.
  • The same nonperturbative structure survives the addition of the Lorentz-force streaming term for strictly longitudinal geometry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Lattice Weyl models that retain the same 1/k orbital-moment singularity near the node should exhibit the same noncommutativity once an analogous low-energy cutoff is identified.
  • If temperature or disorder broadening sets a larger infrared scale than κ_IR, the nonanalytic scalar terms may be washed out, offering a direct experimental knob.
  • Strain-induced axial fields enter only through the effective chiral combinations E_χ and B_χ, so the nonperturbative regime can be tuned independently for each chirality.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a nonperturbative semiclassical theory of Fermi-surface magnetotransport in Weyl semimetals within the conventional first-order chiral kinetic framework (Berry phase-space factor, generalized velocity, and orbital-magnetic-moment correction to the band energy). By retaining the full magnetic-field dependence rather than expanding in B, the authors obtain closed-form expressions for the intrinsic Hall response and for the isotropic and anisotropic Fermi-surface conductivities (Eqs. 15, 24, 29). They show that the continuum theory is infrared-sensitive because of the singular orbital magnetic moment m ~ 1/k, introduce a physically motivated cutoff κ_IR ~ √|λ_χ| from the condition that the OMM correction remain small compared with the band energy (equivalently n ≫ 1 Landau levels), and demonstrate that magnetic-field expansion and momentum integration do not commute: the regularized scalar coefficients contain nonanalytic pieces (including a formally linear-in-λ term in the anisotropic conductivity) that cancel upon reconstruction of the full conductivity tensor, which recovers the standard quadratic magnetoconductivity. Appendices supply the angular/radial integrals, restore the Lorentz-force streaming term (showing it leaves the longitudinal channel unchanged), and reproduce the known weak-field tensor.

Significance. If correct, the work cleanly identifies a regime—low carrier density or moderate B, where λ_χ = B_χ/B_eff is not ≪ 1—in which geometric magnetotransport is intrinsically nonperturbative already inside first-order semiclassical theory, without needing higher-order Berry-phase corrections. The closed-form expressions, the explicit noncommutativity of limits, the consistency check that the full tensor reduces to the known quadratic result (Eqs. 32–33), and the careful restoration of the Lorentz-force term are genuine strengths. The anisotropic conductivity is proposed as a diagnostic of infrared-sensitive orbital-moment physics, which is of interest for interpreting deviations from quadratic magnetoresistance reported at moderate fields. The analysis is technically self-contained and falsifiable within the stated continuum-plus-cutoff framework.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. IV B, Eqs. (26)–(31), Fig. 4] Sec. IV B, Eqs. (26)–(31) and Fig. 4: The claimed nonanalytic scalar pieces (in particular the χ λ_χ term in Eq. 31 and the systematic deviation of the anisotropic conductivity from the perturbative curve in Fig. 4) rest on the infrared cutoff κ_IR ∼ √|λ_χ| that removes the low-momentum branch. While the cutoff is physically motivated by OMM ≪ band energy (and equivalently n ≫ 1), the manuscript does not quantify how Eq. (29) and Fig. 4 depend on the O(1) prefactor in κ_IR. A short sensitivity analysis (e.g., κ_IR = c √|λ| for a few values of c consistent with κ² ≫ |λ|) is needed to establish that the nonanalytic deviation remains visible and is not an artifact of a particular numerical choice of the cutoff.
  2. [Sec. IV C / Sec. V] Sec. IV C and the discussion of experimental relevance: The paper correctly notes that lattice models retain m_k ∼ 1/k near the node and that temperature/disorder introduce competing scales k_T and Γ. For the central claim that magnetotransport is “intrinsically nonperturbative” in a regime relevant to low-density samples, it would help to state more explicitly under what hierarchy (k_IR vs k_T vs disorder scale vs k_F) the nonanalytic scalar features survive, and whether they remain observable once the full conductivity tensor (rather than the isolated anisotropic scalar) is measured. This is a clarification of scope, not a request for new calculations.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption and Eq. (15): the Hall scalar is plotted in units of σ_0 = e² k_F / (8π h); a brief reminder in the caption that this is per chirality (or after summing, as appropriate) would avoid ambiguity when comparing to the Fermi-surface units used in Figs. 3–4.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (19)] Eq. (19) and the subsequent decomposition: the generalized velocity contains a term proportional to B_χ (k̂ · B_χ)/k⁴; a short remark that this piece is kept nonperturbatively in the exact integrals but expands into the O(B²) tensor structures of Appendix D would help readers track the bookkeeping.
  3. [Sec. IV] Notation: λ_χ = B_χ / B_eff is introduced in Eq. (16), but |λ_χ| and sgn(λ_χ) appear frequently; a single sentence stating that the absolute value is taken because the integration domains depend on |B| while chirality enters through χ sgn(λ) would improve readability.
  4. [Sec. II / Appendix C] Appendix C: the recovery of the main-text longitudinal conductivity in the weak-cyclotron limit |γ_χ| ≪ 1 is clear; a cross-reference in the main text (near Eq. 20) to Eqs. (C26)–(C28) would make the scope of the geometric-only treatment more transparent for readers who skip the appendix.
  5. [Sec. I] References: a few recent works on orbital-moment corrections to magnetoconductivity (already cited as [31, 32]) could be contrasted more explicitly in the introduction with the present nonperturbative-in-B strategy, to sharpen the novelty claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: closed-form nonperturbative conductivities and noncommutativity of B-expansion vs. k-integration follow from direct evaluation of standard first-order chiral-kinetic integrals with a physically motivated IR cutoff.

full rationale

The derivation chain begins from the conventional first-order semiclassical equations of motion (Berry phase-space factor D, generalized velocity V, OMM-shifted energy) and the relaxation-time Boltzmann equation, Eqs. (2)–(9). Intrinsic Hall and Fermi-surface currents are obtained by exact angular and radial integration (Apps. A–B), yielding closed forms (15), (24), (29). The IR cutoff κ_IR ∼ √|λ_χ| is introduced by the independent physical requirement that the OMM correction remain small compared with the band energy (equivalently n ≫ 1 Landau levels), not by fitting or by defining the target nonanalytic scalars. Weak-field expansion of the regularized scalars produces nonanalytic pieces that cancel upon reconstruction of the full tensor, which recovers the known quadratic magnetoconductivity (32)–(33); this is a direct comparison of two orders of operations, not a self-definitional identity. Self-citations (e.g., [36]) supply background on axial fields and the perturbative benchmark but are not load-bearing for the new closed forms or the noncommutativity claim. No fitted parameters are re-labeled as predictions, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. The paper is therefore self-contained against its own stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the conventional first-order semiclassical Boltzmann equation with Berry curvature and orbital magnetic moment, the linearized two-node Weyl Hamiltonian, the constant-τ approximation, neglect of Landau quantization (semiclassical regime 4|λ|<1), and a physically motivated but externally imposed IR cutoff. No free parameters are fitted to experimental data; the only scale introduced by hand is the IR cutoff that enforces consistency of the semiclassical expansion itself.

free parameters (2)
  • κ_IR ∼ √|λ_χ|
    Infrared momentum cutoff introduced to keep the OMM correction smaller than the band energy; its precise numerical prefactor is not fixed by a microscopic calculation and is chosen of order unity.
  • relaxation time τ
    Constant scattering time assumed throughout; overall scale of the dissipative conductivity, not fitted but left as a free material parameter.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption First-order semiclassical equations of motion with Berry curvature phase-space factor D and orbital-magnetic-moment energy shift are sufficient; higher-order geometric corrections (positional shifts, etc.) may be neglected.
    Stated in Sec. II and contrasted with Refs. [27–30]; the nonperturbative claim is only with respect to B inside this truncated framework.
  • domain assumption Linearized two-node Weyl Hamiltonian Ĥ = χ ħ v_F σ·k is an adequate low-energy description; lattice-scale physics enters only through the IR cutoff.
    Sec. III; the singular OMM ∼1/k is an artifact of this continuum model.
  • domain assumption Landau quantization can be neglected when 4|λ_χ|<1 (many Landau levels occupied).
    Used to justify the integration domain and the semiclassical regime throughout Sec. IV.
  • domain assumption Constant relaxation-time approximation; Lorentz-force streaming may be restored but does not alter the longitudinal geometric conductivity.
    Main text uses Eq. (6); Appendix C restores the streaming term and shows longitudinal channel unchanged.
  • standard math Standard angular integrals over the sphere and the representation of the delta-function constraint on the OMM-deformed Fermi surface.
    Appendices A–B; ordinary calculus.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonperturbative magnetotransport from band geometry in Weyl semimetals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VSADR5OJ

@misc{pith2026260710468,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonperturbative magnetotransport from band geometry in Weyl semimetals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VSADR5OJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10468}
}
read the original abstract

We develop a nonperturbative semiclassical theory of magnetotransport in Weyl semimetals, retaining the full magnetic-field dependence of the Fermi-surface conductivity in the presence of Berry curvature and orbital magnetic moment effects. We obtain closed-form expressions valid to all orders in the magnetic field within the semiclassical regime. We show that the exact continuum formulation exhibits an intrinsic infrared sensitivity associated with the singular behavior of the orbital magnetic moment, requiring a physically motivated regularization. While the full conductivity tensor reduces to the standard quadratic magnetoconductivity, we demonstrate that magnetic-field expansion and momentum integration do not commute, leading to nonanalytic contributions at the level of scalar transport coefficients. Our results identify a regime, relevant for low carrier densities or moderate magnetic fields, where magnetotransport becomes intrinsically nonperturbative and cannot be captured by conventional weak-field expansions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10468 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Intrinsic Hall response conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Fermi-surface deformation induced by the orbital magnetic moment in a Weyl semimetal. The two panels correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Isotropic Fermi-surface conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Anisotropic Fermi-surface conductivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    M. Z. Hasan and C. L. Kane, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 3045 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Qi and S.-C

    X.-L. Qi and S.-C. Zhang, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1057 (2011)

    2011

  3. [3]

    X. Wan, A. M. Turner, A. Vishwanath, and S. Y . Savrasov, Phys. Rev. B83, 205101 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevB.83.205101

    doi:10.1103/physrevb.83.205101 2011

  4. [4]

    A. A. Burkov and L. Balents, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 127205 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and A. Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 015001 (2018)

    2018

  6. [6]

    S.-Y . Xu, I. Belopolski, N. Alidoust, M. Neupane, G. Bian, C. Zhang, R. Sankar, G. Chang, Z. Yuan, C.-C. Lee, et al., Science349, 613 (2015), URLhttps://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.aaa9297

    doi:10.1126/science.aaa9297 2015

  7. [7]

    B. Q. Lv, H. M. Weng, B. B. Fu, X. P. Wang, H. Miao, J. Ma, P. Richard, X. C. Huang, L. X. Zhao, G. F. Chen, et al., Phys. Rev. X5, 031013 (2015), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031013

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.5.031013 2015

  8. [8]

    Huang, L

    X. Huang, L. Zhao, Y . Long, P. Wang, D. Chen, Z. Yang, H. Liang, M. Xue, H. Weng, Z. Fang, et al., Phys. Rev. X5, 031023 (2015), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031023

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.5.031023 2015

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Yan and C

    B. Yan and C. Felser, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys.8, 337 (2017)

    2017

  2. [10]

    Xiao, M.-C

    D. Xiao, M.-C. Chang, and Q. Niu, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1959 (2010)

    1959

  3. [11]

    D. T. Son and B. Z. Spivak, Phys. Rev. B88, 104412 (2013), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.88. 104412

    2013 doi

  4. [12]

    A. A. Burkov, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 247203 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113. 247203

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    Flores-Calder ´on and A

    R. Flores-Calder ´on and A. Mart´ın-Ruiz, Phys. Rev. B103, 035102 (2021)

    2021

  6. [15]

    M. A. Stephanov and Y . Yin, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 162001 (2012)

    2012

  7. [16]

    Kim, H.-J

    K.-S. Kim, H.-J. Kim, and M. Sasaki, Phys. Rev. B89, 195137 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.89.195137

    2014

  8. [17]

    Lundgren, P

    R. Lundgren, P. Laurell, and G. A. Fiete, Phys. Rev. B90, 165115 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.90.165115

    2014

  9. [18]

    Sodemann and L

    I. Sodemann and L. Fu, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 216806 (2015), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 115.216806

    2015 doi

  10. [19]

    Xiong, S

    J. Xiong, S. N. Kushwaha, T. Liang, J. W. Krizan, M. Hirschberger, W. Wang, R. J. Cava, and N. P. Ong, Science350, 413 (2015)

    2015

  11. [20]

    Zhang, S.-Y

    C. Zhang, S.-Y . Xu, I. Belopolski, Z. Yuan, Z. Lin, B. Tong, G. Bian, N. Alidoust, C.-C. Lee, S.-M. Huang, et al., Nature Communications 7, 10735 (2016)

    2016

  12. [21]

    Q. Li, D. E. Kharzeev, C. Zhang, Y . Huang, I. Pletikosi´c, A. V . Fedorov, R. D. Zhong, J. A. Schneeloch, G. D. Gu, and T. Valla, Nature Physics12, 550 (2016)

    2016

  13. [22]

    Arnold, C

    F. Arnold, C. Shekhar, S.-C. Wu, Y . Sun, R. D. dos Reis, N. Kumar, M. Naumann, M. O. Ajeesh, M. Schmidt, A. G. Grushin, et al., Nature Communications7, 11615 (2016)

    2016

  14. [24]

    M. O. Goerbig, Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 1193 (2011), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1193

    2011 doi

  15. [25]

    Sundaram and Q

    G. Sundaram and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B59, 14915 (1999), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.59. 14915

    1999 doi

  16. [27]

    Y . Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 166601 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.112.166601

    2014

  17. [29]

    Y . Gao, S. A. Yang, and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B91, 214405 (2015), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB. 91.214405

    2015 doi

  18. [30]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter20, 193202 (2008), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-8984/20/19/193202

    2008

  19. [31]

    Ahmad, G

    A. Ahmad, G. V . K., and G. Sharma, Phys. Rev. B111, 035138 (2025), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.111.035138

    2025

  20. [32]

    Varma K., M

    G. Varma K., M. H. Raza, and A. Ahmad, Phys. Rev. B113, 035112 (2026), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ cwlr-h39s

    2026

  21. [35]

    Ahmad, K

    A. Ahmad, K. V . Raman, S. Tewari, and G. Sharma, Phys. Rev. B107, 144206 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.107.144206

    2023

  22. [36]

    Medel Onofre and A

    L. Medel Onofre and A. Mart ´ın-Ruiz, Phys. Rev. B108, 155132 (2023), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.108.155132

    2023

  23. [37]

    Sharma and I

    S. Sharma and I. Mandal, Linear response from tilted dirac cones under strain-induced pseudomagnetic fields (2026), 2604.25758, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.25758

    2026 arXiv

  24. [38]

    Chang and Q

    M.-C. Chang and Q. Niu, Phys. Rev. B53, 7010 (1996), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.53.7010

    1996 doi

  25. [39]

    N. W. Ashcroft and N. D. Mermin, Solid State Physics (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976)

    1976

  26. [40]

    Cortijo, Y

    A. Cortijo, Y . Ferreir´os, K. Landsteiner, and M. A. H. V ozmediano, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 177202 (2015), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.177202

    2015 doi

  27. [41]

    D. I. Pikulin, A. Chen, and M. Franz, Phys. Rev. X6, 041021 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevX.6.041021

    2016

  28. [42]

    R. Ilan, A. G. Grushin, and D. I. Pikulin, Nature Reviews Physics2, 29 (2020), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ s42254-019-0121-8

    2020

  29. [43]

    Morimoto, S

    T. Morimoto, S. Zhong, J. Orenstein, and J. E. Moore, Phys. Rev. B94, 245121 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevB.94.245121

    2016

  30. [44]

    Medel, R

    L. Medel, R. Ghosh, A. Mart ´ın-Ruiz, and I. Mandal, Scientific Reports14, 21390 (2024), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/ s41598-024-68615-0

    2024

  31. [45]

    Ominato and M

    Y . Ominato and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B89, 054202 (2014), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.89. 054202

    2014 doi

  32. [46]

    Ominato and M

    Y . Ominato and M. Koshino, Phys. Rev. B91, 035202 (2015), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.91. 035202

    2015 doi

  33. [47]

    Sharma, P

    G. Sharma, P. Goswami, and S. Tewari, Phys. Rev. B93, 035116 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevB.93.035116

    2016

  34. [48]

    Ahmad and G

    A. Ahmad and G. Sharma, Phys. Rev. B103, 115146 (2021), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevB.103. 115146

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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