Pith. Sign in

RECORD

On the anomalous dimension for the transversity distribution

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
Michael Meyer-Hermann, Ralf Kuhn, Ralf Schützhold

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 18 Dec 2000

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

The authors' main claim We show that a standard calculation of the splitting function for the nonsinglet structure function h_1 does not lead to the expected result.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDhep-ph/0012226 (version 2)
Pith IDNV4F77OZ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationMichael Meyer-Hermann, Ralf Kuhn, Ralf Sch\"utzhold. "On the anomalous dimension for the transversity distribution." arXiv:hep-ph/0012226 (2000). https://pith.science/paper/NV4F77OZ
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, 3,549 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.63 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.27 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.04 · compares with prior results 0.90 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v2. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

We show that a standard calculation of the splitting function for the nonsinglet structure function h_1 does not lead to the expected result. The calculation is compared to the corresponding derivation of the splitting function for the nonsinglet polarized structure function g_1. We analyze possible explanations for the unexpected result and discuss its implications. PACS: 11.10.Hi; 11.40.-q; 11.55.Ds; 13.88.+e

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 show that a standard calculation of the splitting function for the nonsinglet structure function h_1 does not lead to the expected result. result 0.97 0.90 0.74 asserted 1.00
s1 The calculation is compared to the corresponding derivation of the splitting function for the nonsinglet polarized structure function g_1. method 0.82 0.81 0.05 asserted 0.97
s2 We analyze possible explanations for the unexpected result and discuss its implications. contribution 0.78 0.87 0.08 unclear 0.59
s3 PACS: 11.10.Hi; 11.40.-q; 11.55.Ds; 13.88.+e background 0.90 0.04 0.02 unclear 0.99

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.94 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v2
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 show that a standard calculation of the splitting function for the nonsinglet structure function h_1 does not lead to the expected result. The calculation is compared to the corresponding derivation of the splitting function for the nonsinglet polarized structure function g_1. We analyze possible explanations for the unexpected result and discuss its implications. PACS: 11.10.Hi; 11.40.-q; 11.55.Ds; 13.88.+e

Human review

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

Discussion

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