REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 65 references
Dissipation triggers dynamical two-stream instability
T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read Dissipation turns the two-stream energetic instability into a dynamical instability at the same critical counterflow.
desk verdict A credible, well-derived result showing that dissipation converts the two-stream energetic instability into a dynamical instability at the same critical velocity, with a demonstrated scope narrower than the abstract claims. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The machinery is linearized two-fluid hydrodynamics built from the generalized pressure $\Psi(p_1^2,p_2^2,p_{12}^2)$; the conserved currents are derivatives of $\Psi$, with the coefficient $A$ encoding entrainment, the mixing of the two fluids' currents and conjugate momenta. Modes are found by expanding $\omega = c k + i\Gamma k^2$ for small wavenumbers and taking the determinant of the linearized conservation equations in the rest frame of the dissipative fluid. The load-bearing identities are the expressions for the critical velocity and attenuation, especially the proportionality of $\Gamma$ to the mixed susceptibilities $\Delta_1\Delta_2$ and to the single-fluid attenuation $\Gamma_0$; the sign change of $\Gamma$ at $v_2=v_{20}$ is what converts the negative-energy mode into growth. For the r-mode analogue, the entrainment coefficient appears in the effective sound speed and the attenuation, so a mode that only propagates in the presence of counterflow can be made unstable by choosing the sign of $g$.
What would settle it
Solve the relativistic two-fluid mode system without the superfluid constraint, i.e., with two independent vorticity equations for a normal non-dissipative fluid, and check whether the attenuation $\Gamma$ still changes sign at $v_{20}$; if it does not, the claimed generality fails. A laboratory test for the r-mode analogue would be a two-fluid cold-atom mixture with tunable entrainment: for positive entrainment a mode should grow at arbitrarily small relative velocity, while for negative entrainment it should damp; the absence of that sign asymmetry would falsify the prediction.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that dissipation lowers the threshold for the two-stream instability to the point where the ideal-fluid sound mode inverts its direction. Working in the rest frame of the dissipative fluid at zero temperature, the paper expands the dispersion as $\omega = c k + i\Gamma k^2$ and finds that at the critical velocity $v_{20} = c_2/\sqrt{\cos^2\theta + c_2^2(1-\cos^2\theta)}$ the mode speed behaves as $c \simeq -\beta(1-v_2/v_{20})$, while the attenuation behaves as $\Gamma \simeq \Gamma_0 \Delta_1 \Delta_2 c_2^4(1-c_2^2)(1-v_2/v_{20})$. Since $\Gamma$ changes sign at $v_2 = v_{20}$, the mode switches from damped to exponentially growing precisely where the ideal system would only show an energetic instability; the growth requires nonzero viscosity. The same sign change is reproduced from non-relativistic hydrodynamic equations, indicating that the effect is physical rather than an artifact of first-order relativistic hydrodynamics. In the presence of entrainment, the paper also exhibits a mode whose existence depends on the counterflow and whose attenuation is $\Gamma \simeq -g(4\eta+3\zeta)v_2^2\cos^2\theta/(3p_1p_2)$, so for positive entrainment coupling $g$ it is unstable for arbitrarily small relative velocities.
Load-bearing premise
The general claim rests on the assertion, not shown in full, that the superfluid constraint used in the main calculation — $\omega\,\delta p_2 = k\,\delta\mu_2$ — can be replaced by separate vorticity equations for two normal fluids without changing the result; the r-mode analogue additionally assumes that total energy-momentum conservation, rather than separate vorticity equations, is the correct hydrodynamic description.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- At the critical counterflow velocity $v_{20}$ where the ideal-fluid sound mode reverses direction, the attenuation constant changes sign, so a dynamical instability grows in exactly the regime where ideal fluids show only an energetic instability.
- Near threshold the growth rate is set by viscosity and the two-fluid coupling: $\Gamma \simeq \Gamma_0 \Delta_1 \Delta_2 c_2^4(1-c_2^2)(1-v_2/v_{20})$, so the onset growth time is infinite and shortens as the counterflow increases.
- The same sign change of the attenuation follows from non-relativistic fluid equations, confirming that the instability is not an artifact of first-order relativistic hydrodynamics.
- With positive entrainment, a mode exists only for nonzero counterflow and is dynamically unstable for arbitrarily small relative velocities, providing a two-fluid analogue of the r-mode instability of rotating neutron stars.
- For neutron-star crusts, the instability threshold moves to smaller counterflow velocities, which suggests that two-stream instabilities act on larger length scales and lower multipoles than earlier ideal-fluid estimates indicated.
Reading between the lines
- At nonzero temperature, heat conduction adds a dissipative channel whose sign structure is not analysed here; a natural extension is to check whether the same attenuation sign change occurs at the energetic-instability velocity.
- If the paper's use of total energy-momentum conservation rather than separate vorticity equations is right, standard relativistic two-fluid models of neutron-star interiors would need to keep modes they currently discard when inter-species coupling is not extremely weak.
- The r-mode analogy suggests that dissipation plus relative flow is a generic route to secular instability, so laboratory two-fluid systems with tunable entrainment could realise a counterpart of the r-mode instability without rotation or gravitational radiation.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper studies two coupled, interpenetrating relativistic fluids at zero temperature, with one fluid treated as dissipative. Using linearized first-order hydrodynamics, it claims that the energetic two-stream instability, which for ideal fluids sets in when a sound mode inverts its direction at a critical counterflow velocity, is converted into a true dynamical instability exactly at that same critical velocity once dissipation is present. The central derivation in Sec. III B obtains the analytic results in Eqs. (47)-(49), showing that both the sound speed c and the attenuation Γ change sign at v2 = v20, and the growth is proportional to the viscosity coefficients. This is confirmed numerically with a specific equation of state and cross-checked in the non-relativistic limit in Sec. IV B using two separate Navier-Stokes equations. The paper also presents an r-mode analogue in Sec. III C, where with entrainment and an imposed constraint δμ1 = 0 a mode becomes dynamically unstable for arbitrarily small counterflow velocities. The main result is framed as general, independent of whether the non-dissipative fluid is a superfluid or a normal fluid, and as not relying on a microscopic theory.
Significance. The central result, if established in its claimed generality, is a clean and physically important observation: dissipation lowers the threshold for the two-stream dynamical instability to coincide with the energetic-instability threshold, with a growth rate that depends linearly on viscosity and on the thermodynamic coupling between the fluids. The explicit formulas (47)-(49) provide a parameter-free scaling prediction that can be tested in hydrodynamic models, and the nonrelativistic derivation in Sec. IV independently supports the mechanism without the complications of first-order relativistic hydrodynamics. The paper is also careful to identify and avoid the well-known unphysical instabilities of first-order relativistic hydrodynamics. The weakest point is that the relativistic calculation in Sec. III B is performed under a superfluid constraint for the non-dissipative fluid, while the generality of the result to normal fluids is asserted rather than demonstrated; the r-mode section of Sec. III C rests on additional nonstandard assumptions that the authors themselves flag as unproven.
major comments (2)
- [Sec. III B and Introduction (last paragraph)] The paper claims in the Introduction that the main result does not depend on whether the non-dissipative fluid is a superfluid or a normal fluid, and the abstract states the result is general. However, the relativistic derivation in Sec. III B explicitly uses the superfluid constraint ωδp2 = kδμ2 (equivalently ωμ2δv2 = (k − ωv2)δμ2) to eliminate transverse fluctuations of fluid 2, reducing the number of variables from 8 to 5. The text then states without proof that the main results can also be obtained by considering two separate vorticity equations with dissipative terms added to one of them. The nonrelativistic calculation in Sec. IV B does use two separate Navier-Stokes equations, which supports the normal-fluid mechanism in the nonrelativistic regime, but it does not establish the relativistic normal-fluid case, including the factor (1 − c2^2) in Eq. (49). Since the claimed generality is a load-bearing part of the abstract and introduction, the authors should either provide the relativistic calculation with two separate vorticity equations or explicitly restrict the claim to the superfluid case; otherwise the central claim is narrower than presented.
- [Sec. III C] The r-mode analogue is derived under two additional premises that are not part of the main derivation: (i) only total energy-momentum conservation is imposed, not two separate vorticity equations, a regime the authors themselves describe as an open question (text after Eq. (36) and later in Sec. III C); and (ii) the chemical potential of the dissipative fluid is clamped, δμ1 = 0, which is an externally imposed constraint rather than a consequence of the dynamics. The result of Eq. (51), that the mode becomes dynamically unstable for arbitrarily small v2 for positive entrainment g, is therefore not established as a property of the general two-fluid system. This is a secondary claim, and the authors do flag some of the caveats, but the presentation should more clearly state that the r-mode analogue is conditional on the single vorticity-equation assumption and on the δμ1 = 0 constraint, and that these assumptions are not derived from the underlying two-fluid theory.
minor comments (4)
- [Sec. III A, text before Eq. (40)] There is a typo: 'the zero-temperature limit of of Eqs. (18)' should read 'of Eqs. (18)'.
- [Sec. III B, discussion of first-order artifacts] The statement that the unphysical mode T− does not appear because the calculation is performed in the rest frame of the dissipative fluid is plausible but not demonstrated for the coupled two-fluid system; a short argument showing that the reduced 4×4 system contains no mode with the problematic dispersion would strengthen the claim that the instability is not an artifact of first-order relativistic hydrodynamics.
- [Figures 3 and 4] The figure captions do not identify which line style and color correspond to which mode in each panel; adding a legend or explicit label list would improve readability, especially when comparing the weakly and strongly coupled cases.
- [Sec. III B, Eq. (49)] The statement that the attenuation close to the critical velocity does not depend on the angle θ is slightly misleading when read together with Eq. (48), because v20 itself depends on θ through cos^2 θ; the intended meaning is that the prefactor multiplying (1 − v2/v20) is angle-independent, which could be stated explicitly to avoid confusion.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the central instability is derived from the stated hydrodynamic equations, not from fitted inputs or load-bearing self-citations.
full rationale
The paper's central claim is derived, not assumed: starting from the linearized two-fluid conservation equations (Eqs. (38)-(40)), the authors reduce the system to the 4x4 matrix (42), impose the superfluid Josephson constraint only for the non-dissipative component, and solve the resulting determinant to obtain the critical velocity v20 and the attenuation formula Gamma = Gamma0 Delta1 Delta2 c2^4 (1-c2^2)(1-v2/v20) (Eqs. (47)-(49)). No parameter is fitted to the claimed instability: the viscosities enter only through the overall scale Gamma0 and are never adjusted to force the sign change, and the analytic result is confirmed numerically with a model pressure taken from Ref. [23] for illustration only. The self-citations (Refs. [22,23,54]) provide background on ideal-fluid energetic instabilities, a microscopic pressure example, and the usual variational derivation of separate vorticity equations, but the key mechanism is re-derived within the paper from the stated equations, including a completely independent nonrelativistic re-derivation in Sec. IV B. No quantity is defined in terms of the target result, and no prediction is a renamed fit. The manuscript does contain two flagged scope limitations that should be weighed as correctness risks rather than circularity: the relativistic normal-fluid case is asserted rather than shown ('The main results of that section can also be obtained by simply considering two separate vorticity equations', Sec. III B), and the r-mode analogue in Sec. III C relies on using only total energy-momentum conservation, a regime the authors themselves describe as unproven ('we leave a more detailed study of this question for the future'). These gaps affect the demonstrated generality of the claim, but they do not reduce the derivation to its inputs or to a self-citation chain. The derivation is self-contained against the stated hydrodynamic equations, so the circularity score is 0.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (2)
- Model EOS parameters (lambda1, lambda2, m1, m2, h) =
Fig 3: lambda1=0.2, lambda2=0.3, m1=m2=m, p1=12m, p2=10m, h=-0.03 or -0.12; Fig 4: lambda1=0.2, lambda2=0.3, m1=m2=0…
- Entrainment coupling g =
g=0, -0.002/p^2, or +0.002/p^2 in Fig 4; instability requires g>0 in Eq. (51)
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Two-fluid hydrodynamic description with independent velocity fields is valid when inter-collision mean free path exceeds intra-collision mean free path but remains smaller than system size.
- domain assumption First-order Eckart-frame relativistic dissipative hydrodynamics for fluid 1 at zero temperature, with only shear and bulk viscosity, no heat conduction.
- domain assumption In Sec. III B the non-dissipative fluid is a superfluid, so p2^mu = partial^mu psi and the fluctuations satisfy omega delta p2 = k delta mu2, eliminating transverse modes.
- ad hoc to paper In Sec. III C only total energy-momentum conservation is imposed, not two separate vorticity equations.
- domain assumption The mode analysis in Sec. III C imposes the clamping constraint delta mu1 = 0 on the dissipative fluid chemical potential.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Dissipation triggers dynamical two-stream instability." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4ALI656P
@misc{pith2026190804275,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Dissipation triggers dynamical two-stream instability},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4ALI656P}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04275}
}
read the original abstract
Two coupled, interpenetrating fluids suffer instabilities beyond certain critical counterflows. For ideal fluids, an energetic instability occurs at the point where a sound mode inverts its direction due to the counterflow, while dynamical instabilities only occur at larger relative velocities. Here we discuss two relativistic fluids, one of which is dissipative. Using linearized hydrodynamics, we show that in this case the energetic instability turns dynamical, i.e., there is an exponentially growing mode, and this exponential growth only occurs in the presence of dissipation. This result is general and does not rely on an underlying microscopic theory. It can be applied to various two-fluid systems for instance in the interior of neutron stars. We also point out that under certain circumstances the two-fluid system exhibits a mode analogous to the r-mode in neutron stars that can become unstable for arbitrarily small values of the counterflow.
Figures
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[33]
J. L. Friedman and B. F. Schutz, Astrophys. J. 221, 937 (1978)
work page 1978
-
[1]
In this case, the temporal component of the energy-momentum conservation, ∂µTµ0 = 0, is automatically fulfilled. We contract the spatial components ∂µTµi byki and δij− ˆkiˆkj to obtain (three-)longitudinal and (three-)transverse components with respect to the direction of propagation of the mode. Together with the current conservation, this yields 0 = ωδp−...
-
[2]
The corresponding attenuation is to linear order Γ≃ Γ0 ∆1∆2c4 2 (1−c2 2) ( 1− v2 v20 )
cosθ, (48) where θ is the angle between the direction of propagation k and the direction of flow of the non-dissipative fluid v2. The corresponding attenuation is to linear order Γ≃ Γ0 ∆1∆2c4 2 (1−c2 2) ( 1− v2 v20 ) . (49) In particular, close to the critical velocity Γ does not depend on the angle θ. The dynamical instability sets in first (i.e., at the sm...
-
[3]
Yao, H.-Z
X.-C. Yao, H.-Z. Chen, Y.-P. Wu, X.-P. Liu, X.-Q. Wang, X. Jiang, Y. Deng, Y.-A. Chen, and J.-W. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 145301 (2016)
2016
-
[4]
+µ2a1(1− v1· v2)] +ωv2µ2[µ1a1(1−v2
-
[5]
+µ2a12(1− v1· v2)] } δµ1 +i { ωv2A +ωv1µ1[µ1a1(1− v1· v2) +µ2d(1−v2 2)] +ωv2µ2[µ1a12(1− v1· v2) +µ2a2(1−v2 2)] } δµ2 −i(ωv1µ1b1 +ωv2µ2a1)µ2 1v1·δv1−i(ωv1µ1d +ωv2µ2a2)µ2 2v2·δv2−iB1µ1k·δv1−iAµ2k·δv2 −iµ1µ2(ωv1µ1a1 +ωv2µ2a12)(v1·δv2 + v2·δv1), (38) and the same with 1 ↔ 2 for ∂µjµ 2 . For the energy-momentum conservation we need the temporal and spatial com...
-
[6]
+µ2A(1− v1· v2)]ki } δµ1 +iµ1(µ1B1ωv1 +µ2Aωv2)δv1i +iµ1ki(µ1B1v1 +µ2Av2)·δv1 + (1↔ 2) +∂µTµi diss, (39b) where (1 ↔ 2) stands for repeating all preceding terms with subscripts 1 and 2 exchanged. In the non-dissipative part one can recover the two contributions from the vorticities (35): all terms containing fluctuations of fluid 1, i.e., δµ1 and δv1, combin...
-
[7]
Ambipolar diffusion in superfluid neutron stars
K. Glampedakis, D. I. Jones, and L. Samuelsson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 413, 2021 (2011), 1010.1153
work page Pith review arXiv 2011
Show all 65 references
-
[8]
Ferrier-Barbut, M
I. Ferrier-Barbut, M. Delehaye, S. Laurent, A. T. Grier, M. Pierce, B. S. Rem, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Science 345, 1035 (2014), 1404.2548
2014 arXiv
-
[9]
Delehaye, S
M. Delehaye, S. Laurent, I. Ferrier-Barbut, S. Jin, F. Chevy, and C. Salomon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 265303 (2015), 1510.06709
2015 arXiv
- [10]
-
[11]
Goldreich and A
P. Goldreich and A. Reisenegger, Astrophys. J. 395, 250 (1992)
1992
-
[12]
We shall set up the hydrodynamic equations in full generality, including entrainment terms
Of course, even in the absence of entrainment the two fluids can be coupled to each other, for instance through terms in the pressure proportional to p1p2. We shall set up the hydrodynamic equations in full generality, including entrainment terms. Then, for our main result we i...
- [13]
-
[14]
M. E. Gusakov, E. M. Kantor, and P. Haensel, Phys. Rev. C79, 055806 (2009), 0904.3467
2009 arXiv
- [15]
-
[16]
Schmitt and P
A. Schmitt and P. Shternin, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr. 457, 455 (2018), 1711.06520
2018 arXiv
-
[17]
Mukhopadhyay and J
P. Mukhopadhyay and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. D93, 083009 (2016), 1511.00238
2016 arXiv
-
[18]
Tisza, Nature 141, 913 (1938)
L. Tisza, Nature 141, 913 (1938)
1938
-
[19]
Landau, Phys
L. Landau, Phys. Rev. 60, 356 (1941)
1941
-
[20]
M. G. Alford, S. K. Mallavarapu, A. Schmitt, and S. Stetina, Phys. Rev. D87, 065001 (2013), 1212.0670
2013 arXiv
-
[21]
Kurkela, A
A. Kurkela, A. Mukhopadhyay, F. Preis, A. Rebhan, and A. Soloviev, JHEP 08, 054 (2018), 1805.05213
2018 arXiv
-
[22]
S. C. Leung, M. C. Chu, and L. M. Lin, Phys. Rev. D84, 107301 (2011), 1111.1787
2011 arXiv
-
[23]
Xiang, W.-Z
Q.-F. Xiang, W.-Z. Jiang, D.-R. Zhang, and R.-Y. Yang, Phys. Rev. C89, 025803 (2014), 1305.7354
2014 arXiv
-
[24]
Ruostekoski and Z
J. Ruostekoski and Z. Dutton, Phys. Rev. A 76, 063607 (2007), 0707.2571
2007 arXiv
-
[25]
Buneman, Phys.Rev
O. Buneman, Phys.Rev. 115, 503 (1959)
1959
-
[26]
D. T. Farley, Physical Review Letters 10, 279 (1963)
1963
-
[27]
Anderson, R
D. Anderson, R. Fedele, and M. Lisak, American Journal of Physics 69, 1262 (2001)
2001
-
[28]
Livescu, T
D. Livescu, T. Wei, and M. R. Petersen, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 318, 082007 (2011)
2011
-
[29]
Andersson, G
N. Andersson, G. L. Comer, and R. Prix, Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 354, 101 (2004)
2004
- [30]
- [31]
-
[32]
Yu, X.-D
Z.-F. Yu, X.-D. Chai, and J.-K. Xue, Physics Letters A 382, 1231 (2018)
2018
-
[34]
Khalatnikov, An Introduction to the Theory of Superfluidity (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1989)
I. Khalatnikov, An Introduction to the Theory of Superfluidity (Addison-Wesley, New York, 1989)
1989
- [35]
-
[36]
W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Phys. Rev. D31, 725 (1985)
1985
-
[37]
W. A. Hiscock and L. Lindblom, Phys. Rev. D35, 3723 (1987)
1987
-
[38]
Andersson, K
N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho, and C. M. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241103 (2012), 1207.0633
2012 arXiv
-
[39]
F. S. Bemfica, M. M. Disconzi, and J. Noronha (2019), 1907.12695
2019 arXiv
-
[40]
Amado, D
I. Amado, D. Aren, A. Jimnez-Alba, K. Landsteiner, L. Melgar, and I. Salazar Landea, JHEP 02, 063 (2014), 1307.8100
2014 arXiv
-
[41]
M. G. Alford, S. K. Mallavarapu, A. Schmitt, and S. Stetina, Phys. Rev. D89, 085005 (2014), 1310.5953
2014 arXiv
- [42]
-
[43]
Peralta, A
C. Peralta, A. Melatos, M. Giacobello, and A. Ooi, Astrophys. J. 651, 1079 (2006), astro-ph/0607161
2006 arXiv
-
[44]
Chamel, J
N. Chamel, J. M. Pearson, and S. Goriely, ASP Conf. Ser. 466, 203 (2012), 1206.6926
2012 arXiv
- [45]
-
[46]
Haskell and A
B. Haskell and A. Melatos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D24, 1530008 (2015), 1502.07062
2015 arXiv
-
[47]
Hunter, Astrophys
C. Hunter, Astrophys. J. 213, 497 (1977)
1977
-
[48]
J. L. Friedman and B. F. Schutz, Astrophys. J. 222, 281 (1978)
1978
-
[49]
Chandrasekhar, Phys
S. Chandrasekhar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 611 (1970). 20
1970
-
[50]
J. R. Ipser and L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. 373, 213 (1991)
1991
-
[51]
Gaertig, K
E. Gaertig, K. Glampedakis, K. D. Kokkotas, and B. Zink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 101102 (2011), 1106.5512
2011 arXiv
-
[52]
At zero temperature, the sound speed (27a) reduces to the expression (20)
for a derivation of this change of thermodynamic variables. At zero temperature, the sound speed (27a) reduces to the expression (20). We term these two modes L±, see first two rows of Table I. In Fig. 2 we plot the 3 stable modes that exist at T = 0, i.e., L+, L−, and T +, as ...
-
[53]
Glampedakis and L
K. Glampedakis and L. Gualtieri, Astrophys. Space Sci. Libr. 457, 673 (2018), 1709.07049
2018 arXiv
-
[54]
J. I. Kapusta, B. Muller, and M. Stephanov, Phys. Rev. C85, 054906 (2012), 1112.6405
2012 arXiv
- [55]
- [56]
-
[57]
Eckart, Phys
C. Eckart, Phys. Rev. 58, 919 (1940)
1940
-
[58]
L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Pergamon, Oxford, 1987), 2nd ed
1987
-
[59]
Bitaghsir Fadafan, F
K. Bitaghsir Fadafan, F. Kazemian, and A. Schmitt, JHEP 03, 183 (2019), 1811.08698
2019 arXiv
- [60]
-
[61]
Andersson and G
N. Andersson and G. L. Comer, Living Rev. Rel. 10, 1 (2007), gr-qc/0605010
2007 arXiv
-
[62]
A. F. Andreev and E. P. Bashkin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 69, 319 (1975), [Sov. Phys. JETP 42, 164 (1976)]
1975
-
[63]
K. R. Atkins, Phys. Rev. 113, 962 (1959)
1959
- [64]
- [65]
Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.