Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 3 minor 29 references

Toward Supporting Narrative-Driven Data Exploration: Barriers and Design Opportunities

T0 review · 5 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Unsupervised machine learning, fed only measured particle properties and decay products, can recover baryon/meson order, flavor multiplets, conserved charges, and Regge trajectories without symmetry assumptions.

desk verdict A clearly-written, honest clustering study whose advertised claim of autonomous Standard Model rediscovery is undercut by hand-selected input data—worth refereeing for the decay-chain result, but the conclusions need major reframing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.04920 v1 pith:AIRIF2HT submitted 2025-08-06 cs.HC

Oliver Huang , Carolina Nobre This is my paper
classification cs.HC
keywords unsupervisedmachinelearningStandardModelrediscoveryparticleclassificationPCAt-SNEflavormultipletsReggetrajectoriesbaryon-mesonseparation
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

This paper tries to show that a machine can rediscover the Standard Model of particle physics without being taught any physics. Starting from measured particle properties (mass, spin, lifetime) and from lists of observed decay products, the authors run principal component analysis, t-SNE, K-means, and hierarchical clustering, and report that the unlabeled clusters reproduce known structures: baryons separate from mesons, particles arrange into the flavor multiplets of isospin and the Eightfold Way, conserved charges such as baryon number, strangeness, and charm appear as distinguishing features, and baryon excitations line up along Regge trajectories. The point of the exercise is not that the machine names the structures it finds; it is that the structures exist in the geometry of the data alone. If this is right, it gives a concrete path toward using AI for classification and discovery in particle physics, similar to earlier work that rediscovered the periodic table from chemical data.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the feature matrix built from experimental data: one entry records whether a given particle appears among the primary or secondary decay products of another, and another entry collects measured intrinsic properties (mass, spin, lifetime). On these matrices the paper applies principal component analysis (linear projection onto directions of maximal variance), t-SNE (nonlinear embedding that keeps nearby points close in a two-dimensional map), K-means clustering (partitioning into K groups that minimize within-cluster squared distance), and agglomerative hierarchical clustering that merges clusters to minimize within-cluster variance. The work these tools do is to tu

What would settle it

Rebuild the decay-mode matrix of Section 3.2 after removing the proton and neutron as decay endpoints (or after replacing the proton's assigned lifetime with its measured lower bound), rerun PCA and K-means, and check whether baryons and mesons still separate cleanly; if the separation disappears or blurs, the recovered baryon number was inherited from human-curated decay lists and a hand-set lifetime, not discovered from raw data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Standard Model's organizational scheme is latent in data that contain no theoretical labels. The authors encode each particle as a row in a binary matrix whose columns are all known particles and whose entries record whether the column particle appears among the primary or secondary decay products of the row particle; a second representation uses measured mass, spin, and lifetime. Applying PCA to the decay-mode matrix separates baryons from mesons, and after including secondary decays, also separates antibaryons. Applying t-SNE to mass, spin, and lifetime yields clusters that match the $SU(2)$ isospin multiplets, the $SU(3)$ baryon

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the assumption that the input table—observed decay modes plus measured mass, spin, and lifetime, with the proton's lifetime set by hand—contains no theoretical or human-curated content; if that premise fails, the method is guided clustering rather than autonomous rediscovery.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the pipeline recovers $SU(3)$ and $SU(4)$ flavor multiplets from mass, spin, and lifetime alone, the same recipe can be applied to newly discovered hadrons to see whether they fit known multiplets or form outliers.
  • The decay-mode clustering that recovers the baryon/meson split can be extended to heavier states, flagging particles whose decay patterns do not fit any existing family.
  • The Regge-style $J$ versus $m^2$ alignment extracted from clustered baryon excitations implies that quantum-number families can be organized without invoking an underlying quark model.
  • The method's success on known structures motivates applying it to unexplained hadron spectra, such as the exotica found at contemporary colliders, to look for hidden regularities.
  • By showing that clustering can identify conserved charges, the paper points toward using AI to infer which observables are conserved in an arbitrary particle dataset.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The 'directly from data' claim is stronger than the demonstrated pipeline, because the paper's data source lists only observed decays, which conserve baryon number; baryon number is therefore already baked into the feature matrix, and the method may be discovering a selection rule rather than deriving it.
  • Editorial inference: A cleaner test of autonomy would inject synthetic datasets with randomly generated decay tables and see whether the same clustering spontaneously separates baryon-like from meson-like objects; the paper does not run that control.
  • Editorial inference: The paper's pre-selection of 'lightest hadrons of up and down quarks' and 'known before 1960' implicitly uses quark-content and discovery-history knowledge, so a fully autonomous system would need a criterion for choosing subsets that does not depend on theory.
  • Editorial inference: The multi-stage approach (t-SNE clustering followed by $J$-$m$ projection) suggests a general recipe for classifying composite spectra in other fields, such as molecular resonances, where transition patterns play the role of decay modes.
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

5 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an unsupervised machine-learning study of Particle Data Group (PDG) data. It applies PCA, t-SNE, K-means, and hierarchical clustering to particle decay modes and to intrinsic properties (mass, spin, lifetime), and claims to recover interaction classes, the baryon/meson distinction, conserved quantum numbers, SU(2)/SU(3)/SU(4) flavor multiplets, and Regge-like baryon trajectories. The headline claim is that artificial intelligence can rediscover key aspects of the Standard Model 'directly from experimental data' and 'without theoretical inputs.' The paper is presented as a proof-of-concept for data-driven discovery in fundamental physics.

Significance. If the claims were substantiated, the paper would be significant: it would demonstrate that simple unsupervised methods can recover structural organization of the Standard Model from empirical particle data, complementing earlier work such as the rediscovery of the periodic table. The manuscript has notable strengths: it uses public PDG data, the methods are transparent and largely standard, and it combines several analyses (decay-mode PCA, intrinsic-property t-SNE, hierarchical clustering, and Regge trajectories). However, as presented, the central 'without theoretical inputs' claim is not supported because the dataset selection, hyperparameters, and manual labeling inject substantial human knowledge. The result is a collection of interesting exploratory observations rather than an autonomous rediscovery of the Standard Model.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3.3 (Figs. 6–7, Table 1)] The core 'no theoretical inputs' claim is undercut by the curated sample. The analysis is restricted to 'the lightest hadrons composed of up and down quarks only' and to particles 'known before 1960'; both criteria encode knowledge that is not present in the features (mass, spin, lifetime). This is essentially the historical set from which the Eightfold Way was inferred. The t-SNE clusters in Figs. 6–7 may therefore reflect the selection rather than autonomous discovery. The authors should repeat the analysis on the full PDG hadron sample, or use an objective, data-driven selection criterion, and quantify how the multiplet structure depends on the cutoff.
  2. [§3.2 (Figs. 3–5)] The decay-mode matrix is built from PDG-listed observed decays, which already conserve baryon number. As a result, the baryon/meson separation and the B = ±1 split may be pre-encoded by which particles appear as decay products. The text states that baryon number is an 'emergent' feature, but the algorithm only partitions rows; it does not infer a conserved quantum number. To support the 'emergence' claim, the authors should provide a control analysis using the full decay graph, or demonstrate that the separation persists when the input is not restricted to channels satisfying known conservation laws.
  3. [§3.3 (K-means, K=5; Silhouette score)] The recovery of SU(3) multiplets relies on a hand-set K = 5 for K-means. Since the expected number of groups is determined from theory, the match is partly by construction. The Silhouette score (Ss = 0.6 after reduction vs 0.5 for raw features) does not control for this. The authors should report model selection over K, t-SNE hyperparameters (perplexity, learning rate, iterations), and robustness to random seeds. Without these, the multiplet structure cannot be separated from analyst choice.
  4. [§3.4 (Eq. 3.5)] The Regge-trajectory analysis uses J = α′m² + J0 as a theoretical input. The unsupervised part groups baryons by decay modes, but the claim that these groups form Regge trajectories is assessed by plotting J vs m² with that theory-given functional form. The text reports visual alignment and 'approximate universality' of the slope without quantitative fits, uncertainties, or a data-driven derivation of the linear relation. This section as written does not support the claim that Regge trajectories are recovered directly from data.
  5. [§3.3, footnote 7; Abstract; Conclusions] The 'without theoretical inputs' claim is also contradicted by the injection of an arbitrary proton lifetime of 10^50 s (footnote 7). If the proton lifetime is not an experimental datum, treating it as a fixed feature is an assumption. In addition, the abstract's claim to 'identify conserved quantities such as baryon number, strangeness and charm' is stronger than what the algorithm actually produces: the clusters are labeled manually with these quantum numbers. The conclusion itself acknowledges that clusters were 'associated with known multiplets but without identifying them as representations of a symmetry group,' which is in tension with the title and abstract.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] Typos and formatting issues: 'ispospin' in §3.3, 'tthe' in the K-means steps in §2.2, and 'T able' in the Table 1 caption. The figures, especially Figs. 6, 7, and 11, lack axis labels, units, and complete color legends; Fig. 1's baryon-number coloring is difficult to read in grayscale.
  2. [§2.1 / §3.3] t-SNE hyperparameters and code are not reported, so the projections in Figs. 6, 7, and 11 are not reproducible. Please provide the exact parameter settings and, ideally, the analysis code or a public repository.
  3. [Metadata] The abstract/summary text included at the top of the submitted manuscript is for an unrelated HCI paper ('Toward Supporting Narrative-Driven Data Exploration'), while the body is 'Rediscovering the Standard Model with AI.' This metadata mismatch should be corrected before any further consideration.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Central SU(3)/isospin 'rediscovery' reduces by construction to the input mass-spin features on a hand-selected pre-1960 light-hadron sample; the key 'no theoretical inputs' claim is therefore unsupported.

  1. self definitional [§3.3, discussion of Figure 7 / Table 1]
    "At first glance, one might assume that this clustering is to be expected, as spin alone might be sufficient to distinguish between these multiplets. However, to test the robustness of the method, we also included leptons, which of course do not belong to the aforementioned multiplets."

    The t-SNE in Figure 7 is computed from mass, spin and lifetime (Table 1). The SU(3) multiplets that the paper claims to recover are labeled in Table 1 by spin (J=0, 1/2, 1, 3/2) and near-degenerate mass. Thus 'recovering' a multiplet is clustering by the same features that define the multiplet; the cluster labels are the input features by construction. The paper's own sentence concedes that spin alone might suffice for the hadronic clusters. Including leptons does not rescue the hadron-only reduction, since the hadron clusters are still exactly spin classes.

  2. other [§3.3, first paragraph (footnote 5)]
    "beginning by restricting the analysis to the lightest hadrons composed of up and down quarks only, along with all the leptons. (footnote 5: Note that even though we refer to 'quarks' as a simple way of describing hadrons, it is important to emphasize that we are not assuming at any stage that hadrons are composite.)"

    The sample is not theory-free: 'up and down quarks only' and 'known before 1960' are quark-flavor and historical criteria that select precisely the particles organized by the Eightfold Way. These criteria cannot be derived from mass, spin, or lifetime data; they inject the SM structure the paper claims to rediscover. Since no analysis on the full PDG hadron set is provided for §3.3, the clean multiplet separation may be an artifact of this curated subset.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Footnote 7]
    "It should be noted that for the proton, an arbitrary large lifetime of the order of 10^50s was assigned."

    This is an explicitly arbitrary theoretical input inserted into the 'experimental data'. It contradicts the paper's stated goal of using data without theoretical inputs and shows that the intrinsic-property dataset is not purely empirical. It is not the main driver of the multiplet clustering, but it illustrates that the no-assumptions claim is not consistently maintained.

full rationale

The paper's centerpiece — the autonomous recovery of SU(3)/isospin flavor multiplets — is circular in a specific, quotable way. The t-SNE input features are mass, spin, and lifetime, while the multiplet labels in Table 1 are assigned by spin (0, 1/2, 1, 3/2) and approximate mass degeneracy. Clustering by those same features and then labeling the clusters as SU(3) multiplets is a relabeling of the input, not an independent discovery. The paper's own sentence 'spin alone might be sufficient' is an explicit admission of this reduction. The circularity is compounded by the sample selection: restricting to 'the lightest hadrons composed of up and down quarks only' and to particles 'known before 1960' requires quark-flavor and historical knowledge that is not present in the mass/lifetime/spin data. This curated set is essentially the historical Eightfold Way dataset, so the clean multiplet separation may be an artifact of selection rather than an emergent property. The baryon/meson separation from decay chains is less problematic because it follows from observed decay products, but the overall claim of recovering the Standard Model 'directly from data, without theoretical inputs' is not supported once the SU(3) analysis is shown to reduce by construction to the chosen features and to a theory-dependent particle sample. The arbitrary proton lifetime in footnote 7 further undermines the no-assumptions premise. No self-citation chain is involved; the circularity is definitional and data-selectional. Score 8 reflects that the central derivation is forced by the input construction, while some independent content (e.g., baryon/meson decay separation) remains.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the neutrality of its inputs. The decay-product matrix embeds baryon-number conservation because only observed decays are listed; the property features (mass, spin) are the very quantities that define flavor multiplets; the dataset cutoffs (pre-1960, up/down-only) and the arbitrary proton lifetime are hand-chosen. Counting these, the genuinely new analytical content is small: the pipeline is a standard clustering exercise and the main 'free parameters' are the analyst's choices, not physics. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • K-means cluster count K = 5
    K-means requires K a priori (§2.2); K=5 in Figure 7 matches the known multiplet count (baryon octet, decuplet, two meson nonets, leptons). The choice is informed by the expected answer.
  • Proton lifetime = 10^50 s (arbitrary)
    Footnote 7, §3.3: 'an arbitrary large lifetime of the order of 10^50s was assigned' to make the stable proton comparable to other particles.
  • t-SNE hyperparameters (perplexity, learning rate, iterations) = not stated
    t-SNE results in Figures 6, 7, 11 and 12 depend on these unstated settings, which control how local neighborhoods are preserved.
  • Dataset cutoffs (pre-1960 set; light hadrons with no strangeness) = historical/qualitative
    §3.3 selects 'particles known before 1960' and 'lightest hadrons composed of up and down quarks only'; the cutoffs are hand-picked to reproduce the historical Eightfold Way dataset.
  • Regge slope alpha' and intercepts J0 (eq. 3.5) = not shown; 'universality' claimed
    The Conclusions claim recovery of the approximate universality of the Regge slope, but §3.4 presents no fitted values or comparison across trajectories.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math PCA/SVD eigenvalue decomposition, t-SNE KL-divergence minimization, k-means WCSS, silhouette score, Ward linkage are valid as implemented (§2.1-2.2)
    Textbook background the paper invokes without proof.
  • domain assumption PDG decay-mode lists are complete, accurate and unbiased samples of observed decays (§3.2)
    The 1/0 decay-product matrix is built entirely from PDG listings [22]; if listings are curated or incomplete, the cluster structure reflects curation rather than physics.
  • domain assumption Baryon number is conserved in all listed decays, so decay products alone distinguish baryons from mesons (§3.2)
    The paper does not state this explicitly, but the separation result depends on it: the input matrix is already structured by baryon number.
  • domain assumption Flavor SU(3) multiplets are sets of particles with equal spin and roughly equal mass, so clustering on (mass, spin, lifetime) should reproduce them (§3.3, Table 1)
    Table 1 groups particles by multiplet before any analysis; the recovery is only meaningful if this correspondence is nontrivial, which the paper does not establish.
  • domain assumption Regge theory: J = alpha' m^2 + J0 with a universal slope (eq. 3.5, ref [26])
    The qualitative claim that clusters align along parabolic J-vs-m curves presupposes the linear Regge relation.
  • ad hoc to paper The historical subset 'particles known before 1960' is a valid stand-in for a theory-free dataset (§3.3)
    Reconstructing the historical dataset is a research choice that embeds the answer; it is not justified from the data itself.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Toward Supporting Narrative-Driven Data Exploration: Barriers and Design Opportunities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIRIF2HT

@misc{pith2026250804920,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Toward Supporting Narrative-Driven Data Exploration: Barriers and Design Opportunities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIRIF2HT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.04920}
}
read the original abstract

Analysts increasingly explore data through evolving, narrative-driven inquiries, moving beyond static dashboards and predefined metrics as their questions deepen and shift. As these explorations progress, insights often become dispersed across views, making it challenging to maintain context or clarify how conclusions arise. Through a formative study with 48 participants, we identify key barriers that hinder narrative-driven exploration, including difficulty maintaining context across views, tracing reasoning paths, and externalizing evolving interpretations. Our findings surface design opportunities to support narrative-driven analysis better.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Machine learning and the physical sciences,

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, “Machine learning and the physical sciences,”Rev. Mod. Phys.91 no. 4, (2019) 045002, arXiv:1903.10563 [physics.comp-ph]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolic regression.jl,

    M. Cranmer, “Interpretable machine learning for science with pysr and symbolic regression.jl,” 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01582

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regression,

    S.-M. Udrescu and M. Tegmark, “AI Feynman: a Physics-Inspired Method for Symbolic Regression,” Sci. Adv. 6 no. 16, (2020) eaay2631, arXiv:1905.11481 [physics.comp-ph]

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    SymbolFit: Automatic Parametric Modeling with Symbolic Regression,

    H. F. Tsoi, D. Rankin, C. Caillol, M. Cranmer, S. Dasu, J. Duarte, P. Harris, E. Lipeles, and V. Loncar, “SymbolFit: Automatic Parametric Modeling with Symbolic Regression,” Comput. Softw. Big Sci.9 no. 1, (2025) 12, arXiv:2411.09851 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Data science applications to string theory,

    F. Ruehle, “Data science applications to string theory,” Phys. Rept. 839 (2020) 1–117

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    TASI Lectures on Physics for Machine Learning,

    J. Halverson, “TASI Lectures on Physics for Machine Learning,” arXiv:2408.00082 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Learning atoms for materials discovery,

    Q. Zhou, P. Tang, S. Liu, J. Pan, Q. Yan, and S.-C. Zhang, “Learning atoms for materials discovery,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115 no. 28, (June, 2018) . http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801181115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1801181115 2018

  8. [8]

    Baryons from Mesons: A Machine Learning Perspective,

    Y. Gal, V. Jejjala, D. K. Mayorga Pe˜ na, and C. Mishra, “Baryons from Mesons: A Machine Learning Perspective,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A37 no. 06, (2022) 2250031, arXiv:2003.10445 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Quark Mass Models and Reinforcement Learning,

    T. R. Harvey and A. Lukas, “Quark Mass Models and Reinforcement Learning,” JHEP 08 (2021) 161, arXiv:2103.04759 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Back to the formula - LHC edition,

    A. Butter, T. Plehn, N. Soybelman, and J. Brehmer, “Back to the formula - LHC edition,” SciPost Phys. 16 no. 1, (2024) 037, arXiv:2109.10414 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    String Model Building, Reinforcement Learning and Genetic Algorithms,

    S. Abel, A. Constantin, T. R. Harvey, and A. Lukas, “String Model Building, Reinforcement Learning and Genetic Algorithms,” in Nankai Symposium on Mathematical Dialogues: In celebration of S.S.Chern ’s 110th anniversary. 11, 2021. arXiv:2111.07333 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Symbolic regression and precision LHC physics,

    J. Bendavid, D. Conde, M. Morales-Alvarado, V. Sanz, and M. Ubiali, “Symbolic regression and precision LHC physics,” arXiv:2508.00989 [hep-ph]

  5. [13]

    Discovering the underlying analytic structure within Standard Model constants using artificial intelligence,

    S. V. Chekanov and H. Kjellerstrand, “Discovering the underlying analytic structure within Standard Model constants using artificial intelligence,” arXiv:2507.00225 [hep-ph]

  6. [14]

    Detecting Symmetries with Neural Networks,

    S. Krippendorf and M. Syvaeri, “Detecting Symmetries with Neural Networks,” arXiv:2003.13679 [physics.comp-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Improving simulations with symmetry control neural networks,

    M. Syvaeri and S. Krippendorf, “Improving simulations with symmetry control neural networks,” 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.14444

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Discovering Symmetry Invariants and Conserved Quantities by Interpreting Siamese Neural Networks,

    S. J. Wetzel, R. G. Melko, J. Scott, M. Panju, and V. Ganesh, “Discovering Symmetry Invariants and Conserved Quantities by Interpreting Siamese Neural Networks,” Phys. Rev. Res. 2 no. 3, (2020) 033499, arXiv:2003.04299 [physics.comp-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A tutorial on principal component analysis,

    J. Shlens, “A tutorial on principal component analysis,” 2014. https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1100. – 20 –

    2014 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Visualizing data using t-sne,

    L. van der Maaten and G. Hinton, “Visualizing data using t-sne,” Journal of Machine Learning Research9 no. 86, (2008) 2579–2605. http://jmlr.org/papers/v9/vandermaaten08a.html

    2008

  11. [19]

    Theoretical foundations of t-sne for visualizing high-dimensional clustered data,

    T. T. Cai and R. Ma, “Theoretical foundations of t-sne for visualizing high-dimensional clustered data,” 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.07536

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    An analysis of the t-sne algorithm for data visualization,

    S. Arora, W. Hu, and P. K. Kothari, “An analysis of the t-sne algorithm for data visualization,” 2018. https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.01768

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    A rapid review of clustering algorithms,

    H. Yin, A. Aryani, S. Petrie, A. Nambissan, A. Astudillo, and S. Cao, “A rapid review of clustering algorithms,” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07389

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Review of particle physics,

    Particle Data Group Collaboration, S. Navas et al., “Review of particle physics,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 3, (2024) 030001

    2024

  15. [23]

    Searching for long-lived particles beyond the Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider,

    J. Alimena et al., “Searching for long-lived particles beyond the Standard Model at the Large Hadron Collider,” J. Phys. G47 no. 9, (2020) 090501, arXiv:1903.04497 [hep-ex]

    2020

  16. [24]

    Cambridge Lectures on The Standard Model,

    F. Quevedo and A. Schachner, “Cambridge Lectures on The Standard Model,” arXiv:2409.09211 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Progress towards understanding baryon resonances,

    V. Crede and W. Roberts, “Progress towards understanding baryon resonances,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 76 (2013) 076301, arXiv:1302.7299 [nucl-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. D. B. Collins, An Introduction to Regge Theory and High Energy Physics. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Multiplet classification of light-quark baryons,

    E. Klempt and B. C. Metsch, “Multiplet classification of light-quark baryons,” Eur. Phys. J. A 48 (2012) 127

    2012

  20. [28]

    Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks,

    A. Ali, J. S. Lange, and S. Stone, “Exotics: Heavy Pentaquarks and Tetraquarks,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.97 (2017) 123–198, arXiv:1706.00610 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    An updated review of the new hadron states,

    H.-X. Chen, W. Chen, X. Liu, Y.-R. Liu, and S.-L. Zhu, “An updated review of the new hadron states,” Rept. Prog. Phys.86 no. 2, (2023) 026201, arXiv:2204.02649 [hep-ph]. – 21 –

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.