Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Anderson et al. Reply (to the Comment by Murphy on Pioneer 10/11)

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, Slava G. Turyshev

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology · Submitted 29 Jun 1999

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

The authors' main claim We conclude that Murphy's proposal (radiation of the power of the main-bus electrical systems from the rear of the craft) can not explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDgr-qc/9906113 (version 1)
Pith IDI2NA3WS3, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAnthony S. Liu, Eunice L. Lau, John D. Anderson, Michael Martin Nieto, Philip A. Laing, Slava G. Turyshev. "Anderson et al. Reply (to the Comment by Murphy on Pioneer 10/11)." arXiv:gr-qc/9906113 (1999). https://pith.science/paper/I2NA3WS3
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-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 1,627 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.02 · states limitation 0.09 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.05 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.71 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

We conclude that Murphy's proposal (radiation of the power of the main-bus electrical systems from the rear of the craft) can not explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.

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 We conclude that Murphy's proposal (radiation of the power of the main-bus electrical systems from the rear of the craft) can not explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration. result 0.76 0.54 0.90 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 1.00 · evidence from argument 0.86.

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

We conclude that Murphy's proposal (radiation of the power of the main-bus electrical systems from the rear of the craft) can not explain the anomalous Pioneer acceleration.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

References
How the literature uses it

2 arXiv papers cite this in 2 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 whose main result relates to this one's

Found among the papers closest to this one by title and main claim. Pith's classifier compared each pair's main results and a second model family confirmed the relation; checked against two further families, shown conflicts agreed 118 times in 120 and shown same results 218 times in 239. The quoted sentence is the other paper's main claim.

States a conflicting result 1 paper

Discussion

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