{"paper":{"title":"Note Added to ``Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe in the Standard Model\"","arxiv_id":"hep-ph/9406387","primary_cat":"hep-ph","submitted_at":"1994-06-24T12:33:08+00:00","version_compiled":"v1"},"notice":"Every quoted sentence is the authors' text from the arXiv listing abstract. Labels and probabilities are the outputs of classifier-1.13-20260917 on the question bank abstract-p1-20260923, exactly as returned. No sentence in this record was written by a language model.","schema":"pith.compiled-record/v0","status":"compiled","abstract":{"source":"arXiv listing abstract v1","sentences":[{"i":0,"p":1.0,"id":"s0","own":false,"role":"background","text":"Recent papers by Gavela et al. and Huet et al. claim to have shown that incluion of higher order interactions between quasiparticles dramatically decreases the baryon asymmetry of the universe which can arise in the Minimal Standard Model.","hedge":{"p":0.98,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.03,"main_claim_p":0.06,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.25,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.0,"background":1.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.0,"interpretation":0.0}},{"i":1,"p":0.41,"id":"s1","own":false,"role":"result","text":"These papers employ an inconsistent calculational scheme which, for instance, violates unitarity.","hedge":{"p":1.0,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.27,"main_claim_p":0.16,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.04,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.02,"method":0.04,"result":0.41,"background":0.17,"limitation":0.04,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.17,"interpretation":0.15}},{"i":2,"p":0.86,"id":"s2","own":false,"role":"interpretation","text":"We argue that their method cannot be considered as reliable, and thus their conclusions cannot be considered as justified.","hedge":{"p":0.91,"label":"asserted"},"own_p":0.39,"main_claim_p":0.88,"quantitative":false,"quantitative_p":0.03,"role_probabilities":{"gap":0.0,"method":0.0,"result":0.09,"background":0.0,"limitation":0.0,"future_work":0.0,"contribution":0.05,"interpretation":0.86}}]},"compiled":{"main_claim":{"p":1.0,"text":"We argue that their method cannot be considered as reliable, and thus their conclusions cannot be considered as justified.","location":"abstract s2","hedge_strength":{"p":0.91,"label":"asserted"}},"provenance":{"route":{"via":"OpenRouter","model":"classifier-1.13","endpoint":"https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/systemone","provider":"TypeSafe"},"packing":"one request per paper","requests":1,"input_tokens":2941,"cost_usd_reported":0.000124},"compiled_at":"2026-09-23","bank_version":"abstract-p1-20260923","model_version":"classifier-1.13-20260917","abstract_states":{"claims_first":0.03,"states_limitation":0.06,"human_participants":0.01,"controlled_comparison":0.05,"randomized_assignment":0.01,"states_quantitative_result":0.03,"compares_with_prior_results":0.81,"mentions_code_or_data_availability":0.02},"evidential_basis":{"p":0.92,"value":"argument","probabilities":{"argument":0.92,"literature":0.08,"proof_or_derivation":0.0,"analysis_of_existing_data":0.0,"observation_or_experiment":0.0,"simulation_or_computation":0.0}},"contribution_type":{"p":1.0,"value":"position or commentary","probabilities":{"review":0.0,"method_or_tool":0.0,"empirical_study":0.0,"simulation_study":0.0,"theoretical_result":0.0,"dataset_or_benchmark":0.0,"position_or_commentary":1.0}},"contribution_statement":{"p":0.82,"text":"We argue that their method cannot be considered as reliable, and thus their conclusions cannot be considered as justified.","location":"abstract s2"}},"coverage":{"tier":"abstract","levels_run":["P abstract"],"not_examined":["full text","figures and tables","references and citing sentences","relations to other papers"],"sources_read":["arXiv listing abstract v1"],"levels_not_run":["S sections","T body sentences","C citations","R cross-paper relations"],"sentences_examined":3,"sentences_in_abstract":3},"measured_accuracy":{"url":"https://pith.science/accuracy","measured_on":"2026-10-02","method":"two independent model families labelled a fresh random sample blind; the figure is how often the published label matches their consensus","sentence_role_agreement":0.92,"main_claim_agreement":0.908,"typed_citation_agreement":0.933,"typed_citation_agreement_95_interval":[0.917,0.945],"review_comments_accurate":0.758,"review_comments_accurate_95_interval":[0.684,0.82],"review_caught_admitted_error_found_or_related":0.448,"review_comments_judged":{"judged_by":["gpt-5.6-luna","grok-4.7"],"judged_against":"Pith's own text copy of each paper: text extracted from the PDF, the first 90,000 characters","measured_on":"2026-10-04","accurate":113,"decided":149,"sampled_reviews":200,"split_by_lane":false,"by_lane":"https://pith.science/accuracy#by-lane"}}}