MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077205367 · doi:10.1088/0954-3899/39/6/063001

Jet substructure at the Tevatron and LHC: new results, new tools, new benchmarks

2012· article· en· W2077205367 on OpenAlexaff
A. Altheimer, S. Arora, L. Asquith, G. Brooijmans, J. M. Butterworth, M. Campanelli, B. Chapleau, A. Cholakian, John Paul Chou, Mrinal Dasgupta, A. R. Davison, J. Dolen, S.D. Ellis, Rouven Essig, JiJi Fan, R. D. Field, Alessandro Fregoso, Jason Gallicchio, Y. Gershtein, A. Gomes, A. Haas, E. Halkiadakis, V. Halyo, Stefan Hoeche, Anson Hook, Andrew Hornig, Peisi Huang, Eder Izaguirre, Martin Jankowiak, Graham D. Kribs, David Krohn, Andrew J. Larkoski, A. Lath, Christopher Lee, Seung J. Lee, Petar Maksimović, M. Martı́nez, D. W. Miller, Tilman Plehn, K. Prokofiev, R. Rahmat, S. Rappoccio, A. Safonov, Gavin P. Salam, S. Schumann, Matthew D. Schwartz, Michael H. Seymour, Jing Shao, Moeun Son, Davison E. Soper, Michael Spannowsky, I. W. Stewart, Matthew J. Strassler, E. Strauss, Michihisa Takeuchi, Jesse Thaler, Scott Thomas, Brock Tweedie, R. Vasquez Sierra, Christopher K. Vermilion, M. Vos, Jay G. Wacker, Devin G. E. Walker, Jonathan R. Walsh, L-T Wang, S. Wilbur, Wenhan Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle Physics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University
FundersNuclear PhysicsEuropean CommissionU.S. Department of EnergyAgence Nationale de la RechercheNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSubstructureTevatronLarge Hadron ColliderBenchmark (surveying)Jet (fluid)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceSoftwarePhysicsParticle physicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringProgramming languageGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we review recent theoretical progress and the latest experimental results in jet substructure from the Tevatron and the LHC. We review the status of and outlook for calculation and simulation tools for studying jet substructure. Following up on the report of the Boost 2010 workshop, we present a new set of benchmark comparisons of substructure techniques, focusing on the set of variables and grooming methods that are collectively known as 'top taggers'. To facilitate further exploration, we have attempted to collect, harmonize and publish software implementations of these techniques.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.011
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations322
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics G Nuclear and Particle PhysicsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207