Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Time-integrated CP-violation in beauty at LHCb

High Energy Physics - Experiment · Submitted 29 May 2019

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim A selection of recent LHCb results that highlight different aspects of CP violation in $b$-hadron decays are presented here.

how it is stated · asserted 0.92 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID1905.12611 (version 1)
Pith ID2QQSRXQ7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationEmilie Bertholet (on behalf of the LHCb collaboration). "Time-integrated CP-violation in beauty at LHCb." arXiv:1905.12611 (2019). https://pith.science/paper/2QQSRXQ7
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,858 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.05 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.08 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

Precision measurements of time-integrated CP violation in beauty decays permit a better understanding of the different mechanisms underlying CP violation. They allow to better constrain the Standard Model and probe for new physics. A selection of recent LHCb results that highlight different aspects of CP violation in $b$-hadron decays are presented here.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 Precision measurements of time-integrated CP violation in beauty decays permit a better understanding of the different mechanisms underlying CP violation. background 0.99 0.07 0.14 asserted 0.79
s1 They allow to better constrain the Standard Model and probe for new physics. background 0.86 0.07 0.10 asserted 0.86
s2 A selection of recent LHCb results that highlight different aspects of CP violation in $b$-hadron decays are presented here. contribution 1.00 0.52 0.12 asserted 0.92

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 0.84 · evidence from literature 0.43.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

Precision measurements of time-integrated CP violation in beauty decays permit a better understanding of the different mechanisms underlying CP violation. They allow to better constrain the Standard Model and probe for new physics. A selection of recent LHCb results that highlight different aspects of CP violation in $b$-hadron decays are presented here.

Human review
How the literature uses it

What this paper does with the arXiv papers it cites

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

What it cites · 1 sentence without a confident label

Uses data or values from 1 paper

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.