Publishing unbinned differential cross section results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning tools have empowered a qualitatively new way to perform differential cross section measurements whereby the data are unbinned, possibly in many dimensions. Unbinned measurements can enable, improve, or at least simplify comparisons between experiments and with theoretical predictions. Furthermore, many-dimensional measurements can be used to define observables after the measurement instead of before. There is currently no community standard for publishing unbinned data. While there are also essentially no measurements of this type public, unbinned measurements are expected in the near future given recent methodological advances. The purpose of this paper is to propose a scheme for presenting and using unbinned results, which can hopefully form the basis for a community standard to allow for integration into analysis workflows. This is foreseen to be the start of an evolving community dialogue, in order to accommodate future developments in this field that is rapidly evolving.
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 | 0.028 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.012 |
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".