MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7051947711

Performance of UFO and LC Topo jet collections for the VBF di-Higgs production in the HH → bbbb channel in terms of response scale and resolution.

2023· other· en· W7051947711 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCERNTRIUMF
KeywordsJet (fluid)Large Hadron ColliderScale (ratio)Higgs bosonMonte Carlo methodLine (geometry)Resolution (logic)Energy (signal processing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For performance comparison, scale and resolution graphs were created for the mass and energy response of large-radius jets reconstructed from Unified Flow Objects (UFOs) and jets reconstructed only from calorimeter topological clusters (referred to as LC Topo jets) using the SoftDrop and Trimmed groomed truth jet collections, respectively. The analysis was performed on two Monte Carlo simulated data samples based on LHC Run-2 conditions. One of these samples only considered the non-resonant standard model processes for vector boson fusion di-Higgs production, while the other solely contained the resonant process for a graviton decaying to two Higgs bosons. The analysis focused on the di-Higgs to 4b quarks channel exclusively. As a result for both samples, the mass scale showed a good closure of 2% for both jet collections, except at low pT, and the mass resolution was either comparable between the two jet types or the UFO jet collection had a better performance, which is in line with expectations. The energy scale had a good closure of 2-3% and the energy resolution was better for the LC Topo jet collection, as expected due to the LCW calibration.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion researchFrench-language works237,207