MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465635778 · doi:10.2172/1155818

International Linear Collider Physics and Detectors (2011 Status Report)

2012· report· en· W2465635778 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. E. Brau, J. Fuster, Leah Hesla, Monika Illenseer, Perrine Royole-Degieux, Rika Takahashi, Barbara Warmbein, Sakue Yamada, H. Yamamoto, Min Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBundesministerium für Wissenschaft und ForschungCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueState Atomic Energy Corporation ROSATOMMax-Planck-GesellschaftJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceIsrael Science FoundationNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaKorea Science and Engineering FoundationDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSNational Science Foundation
KeywordsInternational Linear ColliderColliderPhysicsWork (physics)DetectorParticle physicsNuclear physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The studies of physics and detectors for the International Linear Collider are an important parallel element to the effort for the ILC Technical Design Report. The studies comprise the physics opportunities, detector requirements, and detector development to achieve the challenging high performance demanded by the physics, as well as integration of detectors into the accelerator. The current phase of this effort began with a call for Letters of Intent (LOIs) in 2007 and will lead to the submission of Detailed Baseline Design (DBD) report together with the ILC Technical Design Report at the end of 2012. Here we summarise the current status of this process, review what it has accomplished and identify the work that still needs to be completed. This report, titled International Linear Collider Physics and Detectors: 2011 Status Report, does just this. This report begins with a discussion of the outstanding issues in physics that motivate the construction of the ILC. It describes the organisation of the LOI process, the validation of the LOIs by the International Detector Advisory Group, and the results of R&D carried out to support the detector designs. The details of the concept detectors have already been published in the LOIs, which were completed in 2009. This report will, in a complementary way, describe the status of the detector R&D for each individual detector component and the status of the physics simulation infrastructure that has been built for the detector design process. Much of this work is carried out in cooperation between the two detector concept groups. This report describes the five common task groups and two working groups that have organised these cooperative activities. Many members of the detector concept groups and the common task groups have contributed to this report. Many more people have carried out the actual work that is reviewed. The complete list of members of each detector concept group can be found from the author lists of the published LOIs. The members of the ILC physics and detector organisation are listed at the end of this document. As we are now nearing the completion of the DBD phase, we are also entering a new stage of our preparation process. The experiments at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Switzerland, are accumulating data and are extending our knowledge of the physics of the teraelectronvolt energy scale. The LHC results may confirm the standard model of electroweak symmetry breaking or they may deliver something completely new. In either case, we believe, the ILC will be critical to resolve the questions that the LHC programme will bring forward. In any scenario, we will need very high-quality detectors and excellent technical and simulation capabilities. This report describes the status of our work in pursuit of that goal.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.063

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207