JETSCAPE framework: <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The JETSCAPE framework is a modular and versatile Monte Carlo software package for the simulation of high energy nuclear collisions. In this work we present a new tune of JETSCAPE, called PP19, and validate it by comparison to jet-based measurements in $p+p$ collisions, including inclusive single jet cross sections, jet shape observables, fragmentation functions, charged hadron cross sections, and dijet mass cross sections. These observables in $p+p$ collisions provide the baseline for their counterparts in nuclear collisions. Quantifying the level of agreement of JETSCAPE results with $p+p$ data is thus necessary for meaningful applications of JETSCAPE to $A+A$ collisions. The calculations use the JETSCAPE PP19 tune, defined in this paper, based on version 1.0 of the JETSCAPE framework. For the observables discussed in this work calculations using JETSCAPE PP19 agree with data over a wide range of collision energies at a level comparable to standard Monte Carlo codes. These results demonstrate the physics capabilities of the JETSCAPE framework and provide benchmarks for JETSCAPE users.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.093 | 0.035 |
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".