Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Mass Agnostic Jet Taggers

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1908.08959 v2 pith:DRTCBNHW submitted 2019-08-23 hep-ph hep-ex

Mass Agnostic Jet Taggers

classification hep-ph hep-ex
keywords backgrounddatamethodsbalancetaggingtechniquestrainingadversarial
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Searching for new physics in large data sets needs a balance between two competing effects---signal identification vs background distortion. In this work, we perform a systematic study of both single variable and multivariate jet tagging methods that aim for this balance. The methods preserve the shape of the background distribution by either augmenting the training procedure or the data itself. Multiple quantitative metrics to compare the methods are considered, for tagging 2-, 3-, or 4-prong jets from the QCD background. This is the first study to show that the data augmentation techniques of Planing and PCA based scaling deliver similar performance as the augmented training techniques of Adversarial NN and uBoost, but are both easier to implement and computationally cheaper.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Higgs Signal Strength Estimation with Machine Learning under Systematic Uncertainties

    hep-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0

    SAGE, a dual-branch GNN trained under nuisance fluctuations, estimates the Higgs signal strength with near-nominal coverage (0.662-0.683) but wider intervals than the top FAIR-HUC leaderboard methods.