HSF IRIS-HEP Second Analysis Ecosystem Workshop Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The second workshop on the HEP Analysis Ecosystem took place 23-25 May 2022 at IJCLab in Orsay, to look at progress and continuing challenges in scaling up HEP analysis to meet the needs of HL-LHC and DUNE, as well as the very pressing needs of LHC Run 3 analysis. The workshop was themed around six particular topics, which were felt to capture key questions, opportunities and challenges. Each topic arranged a plenary session introduction, often with speakers summarising the state-of-the art and the next steps for analysis. This was then followed by parallel sessions, which were much more discussion focused, and where attendees could grapple with the challenges and propose solutions that could be tried. Where there was significant overlap between topics, a joint discussion between them was arranged. In the weeks following the workshop the session convenors wrote this document, which is a summary of the main discussions, the key points raised and the conclusions and outcomes. The document was circulated amongst the participants for comments before being finalised here.
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 | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.108 | 0.086 |
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".