Pith. Sign in

RECORD

Erratum for "Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Active-Sterile..."

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
V. Semikoz, J. W. F. Valle (U. de Valencia)

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 1 Jul 1996

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

The authors' main claim While the sign error in [1] does affect the nucleosynthesis bounds derived in [1], we would like to stress that, in contrast to the criticism made in [2], it does not affect in any way the conclusions reached in subsequent papers in S. Pastor, V. B. Semikoz, J. W. F.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDhep-ph/9607208 (version 1)
Pith IDIHOXJVEU, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationJ. W. F. Valle (U. de Valencia), V. Semikoz. "Erratum for "Nucleosynthesis Constraints on Active-Sterile..."." arXiv:hep-ph/9607208 (1996). https://pith.science/paper/IHOXJVEU
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, 5,669 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.38 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.06 · compares with prior results 0.94 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

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

The magnetization asymmetry given in eq. 3.6 of the above paper (ref. [1], hep-ph/9402332) has a wrong relative sign between particle and anti-particle contributions. Here we present the derivation of the correct sign and its implications for the limits derived in [1]. This sign has also been recently derived in a paper by Elmfors, Grasso and Raffelt, CERN-TH/96-88 [hep-ph/9605250] (ref. [2]) using a different method. While the sign error in [1] does affect the nucleosynthesis bounds derived in [1], we would like to stress that, in contrast to the criticism made in [2], it does not affect in any way the conclusions reached in subsequent papers in S. Pastor, V. B. Semikoz, J. W. F. Valle, Phys.Lett.B369 (1996) 301 and Astropart. Phys. 3 (1995) 87.

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 The magnetization asymmetry given in eq. 3.6 of the above paper (ref. background 0.93 0.07 0.04 unclear 0.78
s1 [1], hep-ph/9402332) has a wrong relative sign between particle and anti-particle contributions. background 0.88 0.16 0.25 asserted 1.00
s2 Here we present the derivation of the correct sign and its implications for the limits derived in [1]. contribution 1.00 0.90 0.24 asserted 0.97
s3 This sign has also been recently derived in a paper by Elmfors, Grasso and Raffelt, CERN-TH/96-88 [hep-ph/9605250] (ref. background 0.99 0.06 0.05 asserted 1.00
s4 [2]) using a different method. background 0.99 0.05 0.04 asserted 0.82
s5 While the sign error in [1] does affect the nucleosynthesis bounds derived in [1], we would like to stress that, in contrast to the criticism made in [2], it does not affect in any way the conclusions reached in subsequent papers in S. Pastor, V. B. Semikoz, J. W. F. interpretation 0.86 0.47 0.59 asserted 1.00
s6 Valle, Phys.Lett.B369 (1996) 301 and Astropart. Phys. 3 (1995) 87. interpretation 0.54 0.19 0.23 asserted 0.79

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: position or commentary 0.75 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.97.

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

The magnetization asymmetry given in eq. 3.6 of the above paper (ref. [1], hep-ph/9402332) has a wrong relative sign between particle and anti-particle contributions. Here we present the derivation of the correct sign and its implications for the limits derived in [1]. This sign has also been recently derived in a paper by Elmfors, Grasso and Raffelt, CERN-TH/96-88 [hep-ph/9605250] (ref. [2]) using a different method. While the sign error in [1] does affect the nucleosynthesis bounds derived in [1], we would like to stress that, in contrast to the criticism made in [2], it does not affect in any way the conclusions reached in subsequent papers in S. Pastor, V. B. Semikoz, J. W. F. Valle, Phys.Lett.B369 (1996) 301 and Astropart. Phys. 3 (1995) 87.

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.