Pith. Sign in

RECORD

A short theoretical review of charmonium production

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 9 Sep 2021

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

The authors' main claim After a brief introduction of several important models and effective field theories for quarkonium production, we discuss the comparisons between theoretical predictions and experimental measurements.

how it is stated · asserted 0.70 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv ID2109.04028 (version 1)
Pith IDIAIYE4TL, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAn-Ping Chen, Hong Zhang, Yan-Qing Ma. "A short theoretical review of charmonium production." arXiv:2109.04028 (2021). https://pith.science/paper/IAIYE4TL
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, 2,250 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.07 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.37 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

In this paper, we review the current status of the phenomenological study of quarkonium production in high energy collisions. After a brief introduction of several important models and effective field theories for quarkonium production, we discuss the comparisons between theoretical predictions and experimental measurements.

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 In this paper, we review the current status of the phenomenological study of quarkonium production in high energy collisions. contribution 0.94 0.35 0.06 asserted 0.60
s1 After a brief introduction of several important models and effective field theories for quarkonium production, we discuss the comparisons between theoretical predictions and experimental measurements. contribution 0.74 0.51 0.07 asserted 0.70

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: review 1.00 · evidence from literature 0.98.

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

In this paper, we review the current status of the phenomenological study of quarkonium production in high energy collisions. After a brief introduction of several important models and effective field theories for quarkonium production, we discuss the comparisons between theoretical predictions and experimental measurements.

Human review
References
How the literature uses it

13 arXiv papers cite this in 15 sentences

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

Papers citing it · 8 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 7 papers

What it cites · 127 sentences without a confident label

Uses the method or tool of 3 papers
Uses data or values from 19 papers
Compares with 1 paper
Cites as support 11 papers
Cites as background 14 papers

Discussion

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