MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036183369 · doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.014007

Tagging highly boosted top quarks

2014· article· en· W2036183369 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Schätzel, Michael Spannowsky

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueUniversity of Oregon
KeywordsPhysicsParticle physicsCalorimeter (particle physics)Large Hadron ColliderQuarkJet (fluid)Nuclear physicsTracking (education)Energy (signal processing)Sensitivity (control systems)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For highly energetic top quarks, the products of the decay $t\ensuremath{\rightarrow}bq{q}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ are collimated. The three-prong decay structure can no longer be resolved using calorimeter information alone if the particle jet separation approaches the calorimeter granularity. We propose a new method, the HPTTopTagger, that uses tracks of charged particles inside a fat jet to find top quarks with transverse momentum ${p}_{T}>1\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{TeV}$. The tracking information is complemented by the calorimeter measurement of the fat jet energy to eliminate the sensitivity to jet-to-jet fluctuations in the charged-to-neutral particle ratio. We show that with the HPTTopTagger, a leptophobic narrow-mass ${Z}^{\ensuremath{'}}$ boson of mass 3 TeV could be found using $300\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{fb}{}^{\ensuremath{-}1}$ of 14 TeV LHC data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D, Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmologySame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207