Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 34 references

A Brunn-Minkowski inequality for Schr\"odinger operators with Kato class potentials

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of a Schrödinger operator with a convex, Kato-decomposable potential satisfies a Brunn-Minkowski inequality under Minkowski interpolation of convex domains, and that the ground state is

desk verdict Plausible and genuinely new Brunn–Minkowski eigenvalue inequality for Schrödinger operators, but the key log-concavity step is asserted rather than proved; worth refereeing, not ready as stated. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.29989 v6 pith:VCLAHK3I submitted 2026-03-31 math.AP

Alessandro Carbotti This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35E1035J2535P1552A40
keywords Brunn-MinkowskiinequalityFirstDirichleteigenvalueSchrödingeroperatorKatoclasspotentialsConvexdomainsLog-concavityofgroundstateTracesemigroupUltracontractivity
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

The paper claims that for Schrödinger operators of the form H_V = -div(A∇) + V, with constant elliptic A and convex, Kato-decomposable potential V, the first Dirichlet eigenvalue is convex under Minkowski interpolation of convex domains: λ_{1,V}((1−r)Ω_0 + rΩ_1) ≤ (1−r)λ_{1,V}(Ω_0) + rλ_{1,V}(Ω_1). If true, this extends a classical geometric inequality from the Laplacian to a wide class of singular and sign-changing potentials. The argument works through the trace-class Schrödinger semigroup: the heat kernel's diagonal trace, the partition function, is log-concave in the interpolation parameter, and the eigenvalue emerges as a limit of convex functions. As a corollary, the first eigenfunction is shown to be strictly positive and log-concave, even on unbounded convex domains.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the heat kernel p_{V,r}(t,x,y) of the Dirichlet realization of H_V on Ω_r, expressed through the Trotter perturbation formula as a limit of products of Gaussian kernels for the constant-coefficient elliptic part and factors e^{−(t/n)V}χ_{Ω_r}. Its diagonal trace, the partition function Z(r,t), is the object whose log-concavity in r—via the Prékopa-Leindler theorem—makes λ_{1,V}(Ω_r) convex in r. Ultracontractivity estimates coming from the Kato-class assumption control the convergence and allow the ground state to be recovered as a uniform limit of log-concave functions.

What would settle it

Compute Z(r,t)=Tr(e^{−tH_V^{Ω_r}}) numerically for two convex domains and a convex Kato potential with singular negative part, for several t>0, and test whether Z(r,t) ≥ Z(0,t)^{1−r}Z(1,t)^r for all r∈[0,1]; a single violation for some t would disprove the key premise. Equivalently, check whether p_{V,r}(t,x,y) is jointly log-concave in (x,y) for such potentials—if the Trotter-product convolution loses log-concavity, the main theorem fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is inequality (1.7): for non-empty convex sets Ω_0 and Ω_1 in R^N and r∈[0,1], λ_{1,V}(Ω_r) ≤ (1−r)λ_{1,V}(Ω_0) + rλ_{1,V}(Ω_1), where Ω_r = (1−r)Ω_0 + rΩ_1 and λ_{1,V} is the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of H_V = −div(A∇) + V. The proof rests on the trace class property of the semigroup: the partition function Z(r,t) = ∫_{Ω_r} p_{V,r}(t,x,x) dx is log-concave in r for every t>0, and since Z(r,t) = ∑_k e^{−tλ_{k,V}(Ω_r)}, the identity λ_{1,V}(Ω_r) = −lim_{t→∞} log Z(r,t)/t expresses the eigenvalue as a pointwise limit of convex functions. The paper then proves, in Theorem 3.5, that the first eigenfunction ψ_{1,V} is strictly positive and log-concave in Ω, using ultracontracti

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the heat kernel of the Dirichlet Schrödinger operator is jointly log-concave in (x,y), making the partition function Z(r,t)=∫_{Ω_r} p_{V,r}(t,x,x)dx log-concave in r; if this fails for singular Kato-class potentials, inequality (1.7) and Theorem 3.5 collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Brunn-Minkowski inequality now covers first Dirichlet eigenvalues for Schrödinger operators with convex Kato-decomposable potentials, unifying known results for the Laplacian and the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator.
  • The ground state log-concavity holds on unbounded convex domains, without the boundedness assumptions previously needed in related settings.
  • The trace-class semigroup method accommodates potentials whose first eigenvalue is negative, so the inequality applies to sign-changing and negative convex potentials.
  • Under stronger convexity and regularity of both domain and potential, the ground state is strongly log-concave, giving quantitative convexity of −log ψ_{1,V}.
  • The result provides a geometric comparison tool for optimizing the first eigenvalue under constraints on the potential and domain.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The proof depends on the assertion that the partition function Z(r,t) is log-concave in r, with the computation deferred to earlier work; verifying this directly for singular Kato-class potentials would close the only visible gap in the chain.
  • A natural next question is whether a Brunn-Minkowski inequality survives for merely convex potentials that are not Kato-decomposable, or with non-convex but log-concave perturbations.
  • The constant-coefficient condition on A appears necessary for the log-concavity-preservation method, since the cited counterexample result suggests variable coefficients destroy the mechanism.
  • The log-concavity of the ground state on unbounded convex domains could lead to sharp concentration estimates for Schrödinger eigenfunctions, in the spirit of Brascamp-Lieb inequalities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper formulates a Brunn–Minkowski-type inequality for the first Dirichlet eigenvalue λ_{1,V}(Ω_r) of the Schrödinger operator H_V = −div(A∇)+V with constant positive-definite A, convex Kato-decomposable V, and convex domains Ω_r=(1−r)Ω_0+rΩ_1. The strategy is to prove that the trace Z(r,t)=Tr(e^{-tH_{V,r}}) is log-concave in r, so that λ_{1,V}(Ω_r)=−lim_{t→∞}(1/t)log Z(r,t) is convex; then ultracontractivity is used to pass from log-concavity of the heat kernel to log-concavity of the first eigenfunction, with a further strong log-concavity result under extra regularity. The central claims are Eq. (1.7) and Theorem 3.5.

Significance. If the proof were complete, the result would unify and extend the Brascamp–Lieb/Colesanti–Francini–Livshyts–Salani circle of results to a broad class of Schrödinger operators with singular Kato-class potentials, and would give ground-state log-concavity on unbounded convex domains. The proposed mechanism—trace-class semigroup plus Prékopa–Leindler—is attractive and potentially correct. However, as written the paper leaves unproved the two key log-concavity assertions on which everything rests; the significance is therefore conditional until those gaps are filled.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, proof of Theorem 1 (first paragraph)] The proof asserts without demonstration that “the function Z(r,t) is log-concave in r for every t>0” and refers only to “the computations done in [6]”. This is the sole bridge from the trace-class semigroup to the convexity of λ_{1,V}(Ω_r): if Z(r,t) were not log-concave, the identity λ_{1,V}(Ω_r)=−lim_{t→∞}(1/t)log Z(r,t) would not imply (1.7). The Trotter formula displayed just before involves products of Gaussian kernels, e^{−tV/n}, and indicators χ_{Ω_r}; a rigorous proof must show, via Prékopa–Leindler on the n-fold integral, that the approximants are log-concave in r, and then justify the limit n→∞. This is load-bearing and cannot be discharged by a vague reference to [6], which treats a different framework. The paper should either supply the full argument or state a precise theorem from [6] with all hypotheses verified for Kato-class potentials.
  2. [Section 3.1, proof of Theorem 3.5] The proof begins: “since the function Ω×Ω ∋ (x,y) ↦ p_V^Ω(t,x,y)f(y) is log-concave for every t>0”. This joint log-concavity of the Dirichlet heat kernel in (x,y) is never proved, and it is stronger than the log-concavity of Z(r,t) in r used in Theorem 1. For Kato-decomposable potentials the heat kernel need not be smooth, so this is not a routine matter. Theorem 3.5 collapses without this assertion. The same gap affects the strong log-concavity proposition, which invokes Theorem 3.5.
  3. [Section 1, Main Theorem statement and Section 2 assumptions] The hypotheses A.1–A.3 refer to “V: Ω → R” with Ω a single convex set, but the Main Theorem involves three different convex sets Ω_0, Ω_1, Ω_r. As stated, λ_{1,V}(Ω_0), λ_{1,V}(Ω_1), and λ_{1,V}(Ω_r) are ill-defined unless V is given on a common convex set containing all of them. The statement should explicitly assume V is defined on, say, a convex set containing Ω_0∪Ω_1, with A.1–A.3 holding there, or on all of R^N. This is a statement-level gap, not merely a typo.
  4. [Example 3.3] The example claims that V(x)=1/d(x,∂Ω)^2 satisfies Assumption A.2 (Kato class). This is false: near a boundary point, the integral defining the Kato class diverges in dimensions N≥2 (and the cited Hardy inequality is not valid with the constant stated). For instance, in a half-space the integral of d(y)^{-2}|x−y|^{2−N} over a small ball is non-integrable in the normal coordinate. Thus the example does not illustrate the theorem and indicates a misunderstanding of the Kato condition. The example should be corrected or removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Definition 2.2] Typo: “so they are are necessarily compact” should read “so they are necessarily compact”.
  2. [Throughout] The numbering is inconsistent: the Main Theorem is referred to as “Theorem 1” in the proof and in Example 3.2, but no theorem numbered 1 appears explicitly.
  3. [Section 3, Example 3.2] The matrix notation “R^{N,N}” should be “R^{N×N}”. Also, the isometry U_φ maps L^2(Ω,e^{−2φ} dx) to L^2(Ω); the domain and boundary conditions under this map should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Section 3.1, Proposition 3.7] In the displayed boundary condition (3.5), the unknown is w, but the text writes “lim_{x→y∈∂Ω} v(x)=+∞”; this should be w. The sentence following the Constant Rank Theorem is confusing: “if ρ=0 the function w is constant along N coordinate directions, otherwise if ρ>0, for every x there exists at least a line r_x on which w is affine” needs rewording for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central derivation is forward-directed; the load-bearing log-concavity of Z(r,t) is asserted rather than proved, which is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain of the Main Theorem and Theorem 3.5. The proof of (1.7) defines Z(r,t) = ∫_{Ω_r} p_{V,r}(t,x,x) dx and then asserts: 'the function Z(r,t) is log-concave in r for every t>0', with the derivation deferred to 'the computations done in [6]'. This is genuinely load-bearing: the convexity of λ_{1,V}(Ω_r) is obtained as the t→∞ limit of -log Z(r,t)/t. But this is an unproved external assertion, not a circular one. It is not an input assumption, it is not fitted to the conclusion, and the paper does not derive it from the target inequality; it is a stronger semigroup-level statement whose proof is omitted. A missing proof is a correctness/rigor risk, not a self-referential reduction. The rest of the argument uses external tools in the forward direction: Trotter product, Gaussian estimates from Simon, spectral mapping, Prékopa–Leindler, and Krein–Rutman. No fitted parameters are renamed as predictions. The only self-citation, [11] (Carbotti et al., Gaussian Faber–Krahn stability), appears in the introduction as a reference for a known Faber–Krahn inequality and is not load-bearing for the main theorems. I therefore find no circularity; the appropriate concern is the unproved log-concavity of Z, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters and no invented entities: the paper fits no data and introduces no new objects. Its content is a theorem assembled from imported machinery (Simon's Schrödinger semigroup estimates, Brascamp–Lieb log-concavity, Prékopa–Leindler, Krein–Rutman, constant-rank). The main unproven weight sits in the heat-kernel log-concavity assertion and in the trace-class/ultracontractivity imports, both cited rather than derived; the genuinely new assembly is the unbounded-domain ground-state argument and the Kato-class framework.

assumptions (8)
  • standard math Spectral Mapping Theorem for point spectra and the trace representation Tr(e^{−tL}) = Σ_k e^{−tλ_k} for compact trace-class semigroups (Thm 2.3, Prop 2.4).
    Used in the proof of Theorem 1 to write Z(r,t) = Σ_k e^{−tλ_{k,V}(Ω_r)} and to identify λ_1 as −lim_{t→∞} log Z/t.
  • domain assumption Gaussian upper bounds and ultracontractivity for Schrödinger semigroups with Kato-decomposable potentials (Thm 2.7, Cor 2.8, cited from Simon [34]).
    Imported from [34]; the uniform bound on the Dirichlet kernel p^Ω_V(1,x,x) via (2.5) is what makes the ground-state convergence in Theorem 3.5 uniform in x and permits unbounded domains.
  • domain assumption Golden–Thompson–Symanzik trace estimate (2.7), cited from [33].
    Converts Assumption A.3 into trace-class property of the Dirichlet semigroup, hence discrete spectrum and finite partition function for every t>0.
  • standard math Log-concavity in (x,y) of the Dirichlet heat kernel of −div(A∇)+V for constant elliptic A and convex V (Section 3; sufficiency attributed to [6], necessity to Kolesnikov [22]).
    The engine of both Theorem 1 (via Prékopa–Leindler on the Trotter integrand) and Theorem 3.5 (kernel × f log-concave ⇒ u log-concave). Asserted, not proved, in the text.
  • standard math Prékopa–Leindler theorem (Thm 1.1) and log-concavity preservation under integration (Thm 3.4, cited from [29]).
    Makes the integral of the jointly log-concave Trotter integrand log-concave in r and in x respectively.
  • standard math Krein–Rutman theorem and irreducibility of the positive semigroup ensure λ_1 is simple and ψ_1 > 0 (Prop 2.9, Remark 2.10, cited from [31,18]).
    The spectral gap λ_2 − λ_1 > 0 is needed for λ_1 = −lim log Z/t and for the exponential decay of I(x,t) in Theorem 3.5.
  • domain assumption Structural assumptions A.1–A.3: V convex, Kato decomposable, e^{−tV} ∈ L¹(Ω); plus the claim that A.1+A.3 force V bounded below (Section 2.3).
    Defines the admissible class of potentials; the boundedness-below claim is asserted without proof.
  • standard math Constant rank theorem for solutions of elliptic equations (Prop 3.7, cited from [24]) and boundary non-degeneracy of the Hessian of w = −log ψ_1 (cited from [23]).
    Imported tools for the strong log-concavity Proposition 3.7; the argument there is a compressed version of the Korevaar constant-rank scheme.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Brunn-Minkowski inequality for Schr\"odinger operators with Kato class potentials." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VCLAHK3I

@misc{pith2026260329989,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Brunn-Minkowski inequality for Schr\"odinger operators with Kato class potentials},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VCLAHK3I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.29989}
}
abstract

In this paper we prove a Brunn-Minkowski inequality for the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of a Schr\"odinger type operator $\mathcal{H}_V:=-\operatorname{div}(A\nabla)+V$, where $V$ is convex and Kato decomposable, using the trace class property of the generated semigroup. As a consequence, we obtain the log-concavity of the ground state using the ultracontractivity of the semigroup, and also the strong log-concavity under additional assumptions on $\Omega$ and $V$.

Review history (3 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [6]

    Brascamp and E.H

    H.J. Brascamp and E.H. Lieb,Some inequalities for Gaussian measures and the long-range order of the one-dimensional plasma, in: A.M. Arthurs (ed.) Functional integration and its applications, Clarendon Press, 1975, and also: M. Loss and M.B. Ruskai (eds) Inequalities, Selecta of Elliott H. Lieb, Springer, 2002, 403-416

    1975

  2. [1]

    Andrews and J

    B. Andrews and J. Clutterbuck,Proof of the fundamental gap conjecture, J. Amer. Math. Soc.24 (2011), no. 3, 899–916

    2011

  3. [2]

    M. F. Betta, F. Chiacchio, and A. Ferone,Isoperimetric estimates for the first eigenfunction of a class of linear elliptic problems, Z. Angew. Math. Phys.58(2007), no. 1, 37–52

    2007

  4. [3]

    S. G. Bobkov and M. Ledoux,From Brunn–Minkowski to Brascamp–Lieb and to logarithmic Sobolev inequalities, Geom. Funct. Anal.10(2000), no. 5, 1028–1052

    2000

  5. [4]

    Borell,The Brunn-Minkowski inequality in Gauss space, Invent

    C. Borell,The Brunn-Minkowski inequality in Gauss space, Invent. Math.30(1975), no. 2, 207–216

    1975

  6. [5]

    ,Convex set functions ind-space, Period. Math. Hungar.6(1975), no. 2, 111–136

    1975

  7. [7]

    H. J. Brascamp and E. H. Lieb,On extensions of the Brunn-Minkowski and Prékopa-Leindler the- orems, including inequalities for log concave functions, and with an application to the diffusion equation, J. Functional Analysis22(1976), no. 4, 366–389

    1976

  8. [8]

    Brasco, G

    L. Brasco, G. Franzina, and B. Ruffini,Schrödinger operators with negative potentials and Lane- Emden densities, J. Funct. Anal.274(2018), no. 6, 1825–1863. BRUNN-MINKOWSKI INEQUALITY FOR SCHRÖDINGER OPERATORS 14

    2018

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Buccheri, L

    S. Buccheri, L. Orsina, and A. C. Ponce,An Agmon-Allegretto-Piepenbrink principle for Schrödinger operators, Rev. R. Acad. Cienc. Exactas Fís. Nat. Ser. A Mat. RACSAM116(2022), no. 4, Paper No. 151, 29

    2022

  2. [10]

    L. A. Caffarelli and J. Spruck,Convexity properties of solutions to some classical variational prob- lems, Comm. Partial Differential Equations7(1982), no. 11, 1337–1379

    1982

  3. [11]

    Carbotti, S

    A. Carbotti, S. Cito, D. A. La Manna, and D. Pallara,Stability of the Gaussian Faber-Krahn in- equality, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4)203(2024), no. 5, 2185–2198

    2024

  4. [12]

    Colesanti,Brunn–Minkowski inequalities for variational functionals and related problems, Adv

    A. Colesanti,Brunn–Minkowski inequalities for variational functionals and related problems, Adv. Math.194(2005), no. 1, 105–135

    2005

  5. [13]

    ,Log-concavity of the first Dirichlet eigenfunction of some elliptic differential operators and convexity inequalities for the relevant eigenvalue, Acta Math. Sci. Ser. B (Engl. Ed.)45(2025), no. 1, 143–152

    2025

  6. [14]

    Colesanti, E

    A. Colesanti, E. Francini, G. Livshyts, and P. Salani,The Brunn-Minkowski inequality for the first eigenvalue of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator and log-concavity of the relevant eigenfunction, To appear in Analysis and PDE. Preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.213...

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Colesanti, L

    A. Colesanti, L. Qin, and P. Salani,Log-concavity of solutions of parabolic equa- tions related to the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator and applications, Preprint available at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.07426 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    E. B. Davies and B. Simon,Ultracontractivity and the heat kernel for Schrödinger operators and Dirichlet Laplacians, J. Funct. Anal.59(1984), no. 2, 335–395

    1984

  9. [17]

    Engel and R

    K.-J. Engel and R. Nagel,One-Parameter Semigroups for Linear Evolution Equations, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 194, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000

    2000

  10. [18]

    ,A short course on operator semigroups, Universitext, Springer, New York, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    Eskenazis and G

    A. Eskenazis and G. Moschidis,The dimensional Brunn-Minkowski inequality in Gauss space, J. Funct. Anal.280(2021), no. 6, Paper No. 108914, 19

    2021

  12. [20]

    R. L. Frank,Minimizing Schrödinger eigenvalues for confining potentials, Adv. Nonlinear Stud.25 (2025), no. 4, 1025–1031

    2025

  13. [21]

    R. J. Gardner,The Brunn–Minkowski inequality, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)39(2002), no. 3, 355–405

    2002

  14. [22]

    A. V. Kolesnikov,On diffusion semigroups preserving the log-concavity, J. Funct. Anal.186(2001), no. 1, 196–205

    2001

  15. [23]

    N. J. Korevaar,Convex solutions to nonlinear elliptic and parabolic boundary value problems, Indiana Univ. Math. J.32(1983), no. 4, 603–614

    1983

  16. [24]

    N. J. Korevaar and J. L. Lewis,Convex solutions of certain elliptic equations have constant rank Hessians, Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.97(1987), no. 1, 19–32

    1987

  17. [25]

    Leindler,On a certain converse of Hölder’s inequality, Acta Sci

    L. Leindler,On a certain converse of Hölder’s inequality, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)33(1972), 217– 223

    1972

  18. [26]

    Maz′ya and M

    V. Maz′ya and M. Shubin,Discreteness of spectrum and positivity criteria for Schrödinger operators, Ann. of Math. (2)162(2005), no. 2, 919–942

    2005

  19. [27]

    E. M. Ouhabaz,Analysis of heat equations on domains, London Mathematical Society Monographs Series, vol. 31, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2005

    2005

  20. [28]

    Prékopa,Logarithmic concave measures with application to stochastic programming, Acta Sci

    A. Prékopa,Logarithmic concave measures with application to stochastic programming, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)32(1971), 301–316. BRUNN-MINKOWSKI INEQUALITY FOR SCHRÖDINGER OPERATORS 15

    1971

  21. [29]

    ,On logarithmic concave measures and functions, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)34(1973), 335– 343

    1973

  22. [30]

    Qin,The strong log-concavity for first eigenfunction of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator in the class of convex bodies, Proc

    L. Qin,The strong log-concavity for first eigenfunction of the Ornstein-Uhlenbeck operator in the class of convex bodies, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. (2026)

    2026

  23. [31]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon,Methods of modern mathematical physics. IV. Analysis of operators, Aca- demic Press [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1978

    1978

  24. [32]

    H. H. Schaefer,Banach lattices and positive operators, Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wis- senschaften, vol. Band 215, Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1974

    1974

  25. [33]

    Simon,Functional integration and quantum physics, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol

    B. Simon,Functional integration and quantum physics, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 86, Academic Press, Inc. [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], New York-London, 1979

    1979

  26. [34]

    E. De Giorgi

    ,Schrödinger semigroups, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)7(1982), no. 3, 447–526. Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica “E. De Giorgi”, Università del Salento, Via Per Arnesano, 73100 Lecce, Italy. Email address:alessandro.carbotti@unisalento.it

    1982

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.