MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6901680280 · doi:10.60692/7wvrp-beh51

Light-quark and gluon jet discrimination in $$pp$$ p p collisions at $$\sqrt{s}=7\mathrm {\ TeV}$$ s = 7 TeV with the ATLAS detector

2014· article· en· W6901680280 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalInstitute of Particle PhysicsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonte Carlo methodGluonAtlas (anatomy)DetectorJet (fluid)Large Hadron ColliderAtlas detector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A likelihood-based discriminant for the identification of quark- and gluon-initiated jets is built and validated using 4.7 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collision data at $\sqrt{s}$ = 7 TeV collected with the ATLAS detector at the LHC. Data samples with enriched quark or gluon content are used in the construction and validation of templates of jet properties that are the input to the likelihood-based discriminant. The discriminating power of the jet tagger is established in both data and Monte Carlo samples within a systematic uncertainty of 10-20%. In data, light-quark jets can be tagged with an efficiency of 50% while achieving a gluon-jet mis-tag rate of 25% in a $p_T$ range between 40 GeV and 360 GeV for jets in the acceptance of the tracker. The rejection of gluon-jets found in the data is significantly below what is attainable using a Pythia 6 Monte Carlo simulation, where gluon-jet mis-tag rates of 10% can be reached for a 50% selection efficiency of light-quark jets using the same jet properties.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information System→Same topicParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies→French-language works237,207→