MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

GAMBIT: the global and modular beyond-the-standard-model inference tool

2018· article· en· W2790373519 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Athron, Csaba Balázs, Torsten Bringmann, A. G. Buckley, M. Chrząszcz, J. M. Conrad, Jonathan M. Cornell, Lars A. Dal, H. J. Dickinson, Joakim Edsjö, Ben Farmer, Tomás E. Gonzalo, P. Jackson, Abram Krislock, Anders Kvellestad, Johan Lundberg, James H. McKay, F. Mahmoudi, Gregory D. Martinez, Antje Putze, Are Raklev, Joachim Ripken, C. Rogan, Aldo Saavedra, Christopher Savage, Pat Scott, N. Serra, Christoph Weniger, M. J. White, Sebastian Wild

Bibliographic record

VenueThe European Physical Journal C · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGambitModular designHiggs bosonComputer scienceInferenceProgramming languagePhysicsSimulationParticle physicsArtificial intelligenceFluent

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ref. (GAMBIT Collaboration: Athron et. al., Eur. Phys. J. C. arXiv:1705.07908 , 2017) we introduced the global-fitting framework GAMBIT. In this addendum, we describe a new minor version increment of this package. GAMBIT 1.1 includes full support for Mathematica backends, which we describe in some detail here. As an example, we backend SUSYHD (Vega and Villadoro, JHEP 07:159, 2015), which calculates the mass of the Higgs boson in the MSSM from effective field theory. We also describe updated likelihoods in PrecisionBit and DarkBit, and updated decay data included in DecayBit.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0890.034

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe European Physical Journal CSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207