MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916245928 · doi:10.21468/scipostphys.7.1.014

The Machine Learning landscape of top taggers

2019· article· en· W2916245928 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueSciPost Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNuclear PhysicsFermilabU.S. Department of EnergyHigh Energy PhysicsScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNvidiaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsTask (project management)Range (aeronautics)Deep learningTraining setKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on the established task of identifying boosted, hadronically decaying top quarks, we compare a wide range of modern machine learning approaches. Unlike most established methods they rely on low-level input, for instance calorimeter output. While their network architectures are vastly different, their performance is comparatively similar. In general, we find that these new approaches are extremely powerful and great fun.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.013
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
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

Citations236
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciPost PhysicsSame topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesFrench-language works237,207