Constraints on Future Analysis Metadata Systems in High Energy Physics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In high energy physics (HEP), analysis metadata comes in many forms—from theoretical cross-sections, to calibration corrections, to details about file processing. Correctly applying metadata is a crucial and often time-consuming step in an analysis, but designing analysis metadata systems has historically received little direct attention. Among other considerations, an ideal metadata tool should be easy to use by new analysers, should scale to large data volumes and diverse processing paradigms, and should enable future analysis reinterpretation. This document, which is the product of community discussions organised by the HEP Software Foundation, categorises types of metadata by scope and format and gives examples of current metadata solutions. Important design considerations for metadata systems, including sociological factors, analysis preservation efforts, and technical factors, are discussed. A list of best practices and technical requirements for future analysis metadata systems is presented. These best practices could guide the development of a future cross-experimental effort for analysis metadata tools.
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 | 0.176 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.041 | 0.073 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.006 |
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".