Power counting to better jet observables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimized jet substructure observables for identifying boosted topologies will play an essential role in maximizing the physics reach of the Large Hadron Collider. Ideally, the design of discriminating variables would be informed by analytic calculations in perturbative QCD. Unfortunately, explicit calculations are often not feasible due to the complexity of the observables used for discrimination, and so many validation studies rely heavily, and solely, on Monte Carlo. In this paper we show how methods based on the parametric power counting of the dynamics of QCD, familiar from effective theory analyses, can be used to design, understand, and make robust predictions for the behavior of jet substructure variables. As a concrete example, we apply power counting for discriminating boosted Z bosons from massive QCD jets using observables formed from the n-point energy correlation functions. We show that power counting alone gives a definite prediction for the observable that optimally separates the background-rich from the signal-rich regions of phase space. Power counting can also be used to understand effects of phase space cuts and the effect of contamination from pile-up, which we discuss. As these arguments rely only on the parametric scaling of QCD, the predictions from power counting must be reproduced by any Monte Carlo, which we verify using Pythia 8 and Herwig++. We also use the example of quark versus gluon discrimination to demonstrate the limits of the power counting technique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".