Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/9706281 v1 · submitted 7 Jun 1997

How to Measure CP Violation in Neutrino Oscillation Experiments?

Hisakazu Minakata, Hiroshi Nunokawa

The paper says

“We propose a new method for measuring CP violation in neutrino oscillation experiments.”

from the abstract · picked out as the main claim by a classifier

Pith says

Pith has not reviewed this paper.

Get a Pith Review, $5

Reviews

Reviews by people

No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

We propose a new method for measuring CP violation in neutrino oscillation experiments. The idea is to isolate the term due to the CP-violating phase out of the oscillation probability by taking difference between yields of two (or three) detectors at path-lengths L = 250(E/(1.35GeV))((Δm2)/(10−2eV2))−1km and at L/3 (and also at 2L/3 in the case of three detectors). We use possible hierarchies in neutrino masses suggested by the astrophysical and the cosmological observations to motivate the idea and to examine how the method works.

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. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

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

How the main claim is stated: asserted 0.95

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.10 · states limitation 0.09 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.21 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.16 · compares with prior results 0.07 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
We propose a new method for measuring CP violation in neutrino oscillation experiments. contribution 1.00 0.68 0.36 asserted 0.95
The idea is to isolate the term due to the CP-violating phase out of the oscillation probability by taking difference between yields of two (or three) detectors at path-lengths $L = 250 (\frac{E}{1.35 {GeV}}) (\frac{\Delta m^2}{10^{-2}{eV}^2})^{-1} {km}$ and at $L/3$ (and also at $2L/3$ in the case of three detectors). method 0.99 0.48 0.21 asserted 0.99
We use possible hierarchies in neutrino masses suggested by the astrophysical and the cosmological observations to motivate the idea and to examine how the method works. method 0.40 0.62 0.06 hedged possibility 0.70

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: method or tool 1.00 · evidence from argument 0.50

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

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,147 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Cited by 7 Pith papers
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 · 13 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper
Cites it as background 1 paper

Challenges and discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment