Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Run 3 performance and advances in heavy-flavor jet tagging in CMS

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read UParT, a transformer-based tagger, now gives CMS its best charm-jet identification in Run 3, and flavor-enriched scale factors bring data and simulation into agreement for heavy-flavor and boosted jets.

desk verdict A useful, honest proceedings summary of CMS Run 3 heavy-flavor tagging; calibration closure is in-sample, but that is a presentation gap, not a fatal flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05863 v1 pith:DUJNRHAP submitted 2024-12-08 hep-ex physics.data-an

Uttiya Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exphysics.data-an
keywords heavy-flavorjettaggingUParTunifiedparticletransformerb-jetc-jets-jetscalefactorsboosted
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper describes how heavy-flavor jet identification—labeling jets from bottom and charm quarks versus light quarks and gluons—performs in the first Run 3 proton-proton collisions at 13.6 TeV. It claims that the UnifiedParticleTransformer (UParT), a transformer-based tagger with pairwise particle-vertex interactions and adversarial training, gives CMS its best charm-jet identification so far, with consistent efficiency gains over earlier graph and deep-network taggers. It further claims that scale factors derived from flavor-enriched events—top-pair dileptons for b jets and W+jets for c jets—bring data and simulation into agreement on the tagger discriminants, and that boosted-jet taggers are validated in $Z\to b\bar{b}$-enriched data. These results matter because b, c, and boosted-jet tagging is the basis for top-quark, Higgs-boson, and new-physics searches at the LHC.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is UParT itself: a transformer tagger in which a multi-head attention mechanism consumes pairwise interaction features between every jet constituent and every secondary vertex, and adversarial training on distorted input features keeps the model from latching onto simulation-specific details; UParT also returns jet energy regression and resolution estimates alongside flavor probabilities. The second is the calibration machinery: scale factors derived by comparing data and simulation for flavor-enriched selections, applied either per working point or as shape corrections to the full discriminant distributions. For boosted jets, the load-bearing object is the ParticleNetMD discriminant, combined with soft-drop mass in a simultaneous likelihood fit over score regions.

What would settle it

Take the scale factors described in the paper and apply them to a flavor-enriched sample outside the calibration selections, for example $Z\to b\bar{b}$ or $Z\to c\bar{c}$ events from the same 2022-2023 run, and compare the tagger discriminant and soft-drop mass distributions to simulation: if the data-to-simulation ratio departs from unity by more than the quoted systematic uncertainties in any kinematic bin, the transferability assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central result is that the latest tagger generation works better and can be calibrated. UParT, built on the ParticleTransformer architecture for AK4 jets, outperforms all previous CMS taggers in c-jet identification and reduces light-jet or c-jet mistagging at fixed b-jet efficiency; it also introduces the first s-jet classifier in CMS and a hadronic-tau classifier. The calibration study shows that scale factors computed from b-enriched top-pair and c-enriched W+jets samples correct the main data-versus-simulation shifts in the BvsAll, CvsL, and CvsB discriminators for 2022–2023 data, with post-correction agreement visibly better than before. For merged jets, the paper reports that ParticleNetMD is the best of the Run 2 boosted taggers, and its Run 3 validation in $Z\to b\bar{b}$ events reproduces the Z boson mass peak after a likelihood fit, which the paper reads as confirmation that the tagger works in data.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the correction factors derived from top-pair dilepton events for bottom jets and W+jets events for charm jets work everywhere else in Run 3; the paper only shows post-correction agreement in those enriched samples, not in other kinematic regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Run 3 CMS analyses can use UParT discriminators with better light- and charm-jet rejection than previous taggers, reducing backgrounds in top and Higgs measurements.
  • Calibrated scale factors from top-pair and W+jets selections make b- and c-tagging usable in data, though the paper notes some performance loss after calibration.
  • UParT's s-jet and hadronic-tau classifiers open new tagging channels, including a low-efficiency s-tagger that reaches 20% efficiency at a $10^{-3}$ misidentification probability.
  • ParticleNetMD's Run 3 $Z\to b\bar{b}$ validation, with a visible Z mass peak after the fit, supports boosted analyses such as $H\to b\bar{b}$ and $H\to c\bar{c}$.
  • The b-hive and BTVNanoCommissioning frameworks let the training and commissioning cycle run automatically, which keeps up with changing detector conditions in Run 3.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If adversarial training makes UParT insensitive to input distortions, future taggers may need fewer retraining cycles after detector or simulation changes; the paper does not quantify how far this transfers.
  • A working s-jet tagger would give LHC analyses a new probe of strange-quark physics, such as strange-quark Yukawa or fragmentation measurements, but only simulated ROC performance is reported here.
  • The calibration claim is the most natural point to stress-test: applying the same corrections in a very different regime, for example very high transverse momentum or boosted topologies, is a testable extension rather than something the paper demonstrates.
  • UParT's per-jet flavor probabilities and ParticleNetMD's boosted-jet discriminant could eventually be combined into one unified resolved-plus-boosted tagger, but the paper stops short of that.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This ICHEP 2024 conference proceeding summarizes recent CMS heavy-flavor jet tagging results: the evolution of taggers from CSV to UParT, the UParT architecture and its simulated performance (including first s-jet tagging and hadronic tau classification), data-to-simulation comparisons and scale-factor calibration using 2022-2023 Run 3 data, boosted-jet tagging for H to bb and H to cc, and the b-hive and BTVNanoCommissioning frameworks. The central claims are that UParT provides the best c-jet tagging performance in CMS so far and that the derived scale factors bring data and simulation into agreement, making the calibrated taggers usable for Run 3 physics analyses.

Significance. If the claims hold, UParT represents a clear advance in c-jet identification and robust transformer-based tagging, and the described calibration framework would be directly useful for Run 3 analyses. The paper is a readable and generally accurate summary of the current CMS program, and it appropriately cites the official CMS detector performance summaries. The paper's main quantitative support, however, is limited: the ROC curves in Figures 2 and 3 are shown without uncertainty bands, and the calibration demonstration in Figure 5 is largely an in-sample consistency check without independent closure. The strengths are the clear architectural description of UParT, the public availability of the b-hive and BTVNanoCommissioning frameworks, and the explicit references to the underlying CMS DP notes.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Figures 2 and 3] The headline claim that UParT is 'the most performing model so far in c-jet identification' rests on ROC curves that are shown without any statistical or systematic uncertainty bands. Because the comparison is made on a single simulated ttbar sample and no uncertainties are given, the reader cannot judge whether the apparent improvement over ParticleNet is significant. Please add uncertainties or, at a minimum, state explicitly that the conclusion is qualitative and refer the reader to the official CMS detector performance summary for the quantitative comparison.
  2. [Section 5, Figure 5] The demonstration that scale factors bring data and simulation into agreement is an in-sample consistency check for b tagging: the left panel uses the e-mu+jets ttbar phase space, which is the same phase space typically used to derive b-tagging scale factors. The right panel provides a hadronic-ttbar cross-check, but no quantitative closure metric or uncertainty budget is quoted, and the c-tagging scale factors derived from W+jets are not validated against an independent c-enriched selection. Consequently, the extrapolation of these scale factors to arbitrary Run 3 analyses is not established by the evidence shown; please add an independent closure test or explicitly restrict the claim to the validated phase space and cite the official CMS calibration note.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2 and Figure 2 caption] The label 'BvsC' appears in the Figure 2 caption but is not defined among the discriminators in Section 2; either define it or use the already-defined 'CvsB' consistently.
  2. [Section 4 and Figure 4] The text and figure caption use both 'BvsAll' and 'BvAll' for the same discriminant; please use a single notation throughout.
  3. [Section 6, Figure 8 caption] The caption says 'under the 2018 data-taking conditions' while the surrounding text describes a Run-3 validation; clarify that the left panel is Run 2 and the right panel is Run 3.
  4. [Sections 2, 5, and 8] There are several typographical errors, including 'Multi-Layer-Percrepton', 'the the light-jet misidentification rate', and 'utilisessophisticated machine learning techniques'; these should be corrected in a final proofreading pass.
  5. [Section 3 and Figure 3] The claim that UParT provides the 'first attempt' at s-quark jet tagging in CMS is stated without a citation; if this is the first public result, please add a reference to the relevant CMS DP note or CMS-PAS.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Core UParT performance comparisons are independent, but the Section 5 post-calibration agreement is an in-sample fit shown as validation.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5, Figure 5 and surrounding text]
    "Scale Factors (SFs) are introduced to correct discrepancies between the tagging efficiencies observed in data and those predicted by simulations. These SFs are derived by comparing the performance of tagging algorithms on data and simulations for various jet flavors... The comparison between pre- and post-calibration distributions is shown in figure 5. After applying the SFs, the agreement between data and simulation improves considerably, mitigating the effects of mismodeling."

    The SFs are fitted to data/MC differences in flavor-enriched selections. Figure 5 (left) then demonstrates improved agreement in the e-mu+jets phase space, which is the same ttbar-dilepton topology used to derive b-tagging SFs. The post-SF improvement is therefore the in-sample result of the fit, not an independent validation; a shape-based SF that successfully reduces the residual would produce a better ratio by construction. The right panel uses hadronic ttbar as a cross-check but quotes no closure metric or uncertainty budget, and the c-tagging SFs from W+jets are not validated against an independent c-enriched selection. Thus the claim that calibrated taggers are usable for Run 3 physics is supported mainly by an in-sample calibration check.

full rationale

The paper is a performance summary, not a derivation-based analysis, so most claimed results are empirical comparisons on simulation. The central UParT performance claim (Figures 2 and 3) is an ROC comparison against prior taggers on simulated samples; this is an independent algorithmic benchmark and is not circular. The boosted-jet ROC curves and the Z->bb post-fit mass peak are similarly externally meaningful. The only genuinely in-sample circularity is in Section 5: SFs are derived from data/MC comparisons, and the post-SF agreement shown in Figure 5 (left) is displayed in the same flavor-enriched phase space used for the SF derivation, so the improvement is a property of the fitted SFs rather than a predictive validation. The hadronic-ttbar right panel is a partial cross-check but no quantitative closure statistic or uncertainty is provided. Because the main tagging-performance claims do not depend on this calibration step and retain independent content, the overall circularity is limited to this one fitted-input-as-validation step.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on two domain assumptions: (1) simulation mismodeling is correctable by per-flavor scale factors, and (2) flavor-enriched selections used to derive SFs are sufficiently pure. No new physical entities or exotic objects are introduced. The only fitted quantities are the scale factors, whose numerical values are not given.

free parameters (1)
  • Flavor tagging scale factors (b, c, light) = Not specified in this proceeding
    Used in Section 5 to correct data/MC tagger score distributions. The SFs are derived from flavour-enriched data selections and then applied to the same or similar distributions, so they are fitted quantities rather than external predictions.
assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Residual simulation mismodeling can be corrected by per-flavor, per-phase-space scale factors derived from data.
    Adopted in Sections 4 and 5 when comparing tagger score distributions and applying SFs. If the mismodeling varies within a jet in a way a single SF cannot capture, the calibrated efficiencies would be biased.
  • domain assumption Flavor-enriched calibration selections (ttbar for b, W+jets for c) are pure enough that the derived scale factors are not dominated by background contamination.
    Stated in Section 5 as the basis for deriving SFs. Impurity would make the SFs absorb background modeling errors and would not transfer to other analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Run 3 performance and advances in heavy-flavor jet tagging in CMS." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DUJNRHAP

@misc{pith2026241205863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Run 3 performance and advances in heavy-flavor jet tagging in CMS},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DUJNRHAP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05863}
}
read the original abstract

Identification of hadronic jets originating from heavy-flavor quarks is extremely important to several physics analyses in High Energy Physics, such as studies of the properties of the top quark and the Higgs boson, and searches for new physics. Recent algorithms used in the CMS experiment were developed using state-of-the-art machine-learning techniques to distinguish jets emerging from the decay of heavy flavour (charm and bottom) quarks from those arising from light-flavor (udsg) ones. Increasingly complex deep neural network architectures, such as graphs and transformers, have helped achieve unprecedented accuracies in jet tagging. New advances in tagging algorithms, along with new calibration methods using flavour-enriched selections of proton-proton collision events, allow us to estimate flavour tagging performances with the CMS detector during early Run 3 of the LHC.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05863 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Evolution of the b-tagging performance for jet flavor identification algorithms used in CMS from Run 1 to Run 3. Left plot shows the increase in tagging performance follows the progression in machine learning whereas the right plot shows that the light- (udsg, yellow bars) and c-jet (red bars) rejection for a fixed b-jet identification efficiency of 70% for taggers from Run 1 to Run 3. To evaluate the performance of… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: ROC curves of post-training reweighted discriminators for b-tagging. Both BvsL and BvsC shows the best rejection against their specific flavor but fail to achieve a good rejection for the other. The different weighted BvsAll show a trade-off for BvsC and BvsL showing a significant improvement in BvsL for a limited impact on BvsC performance. Right: c-tagging ROC curves. UParT shows state-of-the-art performance… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: First s-tagging ROC curves in CMS experiment. Performances indicates we can achieve a low efficiency s-tagger. Right: 𝜏-tagging ROC curves. ParticleNet and UParT show similar performances. ParticleNet performs better at high misidentification rate and UParT at lower rate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: ParticleNetAK4 BvAll discriminator of the selected jet with highest pT. A lower tagger score in the mismatched peak position and downward trend are observed. results to better match the data. These corrections are necessary to maintain the validity of tagging algorithm…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left plot shows the distribution of the b jet discriminant score of the ParticleNet algorithm for jets the 𝑒𝜇 + jets phase space for data recorded in late 2022 period. The recorded data and simulated events after applying the SFs are shown. In the lower panel the data-…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ROC curves for signal efficiency vs. background efficiency where signal is 𝐻 → 𝑏𝑏¯ and the background is inclusive QCD. The plot compares the performance of different boosted taggers in 450<pT<600 GeV (left) and pT > 600 GeV (right) for a mass selection between 90 and …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ROC curves for signal efficiency vs. background efficiency where signal is 𝐻 → 𝑐𝑐¯ and the background is inclusive QCD. The plot compares the performance of different boosted taggers in 450<pT<600 GeV (left) and pT > 600 GeV (right) for a mass selection between 90 and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: The ROC curve of the ParticleNetMD discriminant obtained using simulation (blue) with the three working points pointed out in simulation (filled circles) and in data (hollow circles), under the 2018 data-taking conditions with pT > 450 GeV. Right: Data to simulat…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The flowchart of different stages in the b-hive framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The analysis workflow for BTV commissioning tasks. The first stage is centrally produced NANOAOD samples, the second stage is divided into different workflows enrich in specific flavored jets, and the last part is the histogrammer and plotter. The last two stages are …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Searching for Di-Higgs Signatures of Light Charged Scalars

    hep-ph 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A roughly 130 GeV charged Higgs explaining the ATLAS t to bH+ excess and B-meson anomalies can be constrained, and perhaps discovered, by recasting SM di-Higgs 4b searches at the LHC.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [4]

    AunifiedapproachforjettagginginRun3at √𝑠=13.6TeVinCMS

    CMSCollaboration. AunifiedapproachforjettagginginRun3at √𝑠=13.6TeVinCMS. CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-066, 2024. URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/ record/2904702

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC.JINST, 3:S08004, 2008

    CMS Collaboration. The CMS Experiment at the CERN LHC.JINST, 3:S08004, 2008. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/S08004

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/3/08/s08004 2008

  3. [2]

    Identificationofheavy-flavourjetswiththeCMSdetectorinppcollisions at 13 TeV.JINST, 13(05):P05011, 2018

    A.M.Sirunyanetal. Identificationofheavy-flavourjetswiththeCMSdetectorinppcollisions at 13 TeV.JINST, 13(05):P05011, 2018. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/P05011

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/13/05/p05011 2018

  4. [3]

    Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment.Journal of Instrumentation, 8(04):P04013, apr 2013

    CMS collaboration. Identification of b-quark jets with the CMS experiment.Journal of Instrumentation, 8(04):P04013, apr 2013. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04013. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/P04013

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/8/04/p04013 2013

  5. [5]

    Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC run 3.Journal of Instrumentation, 19(05):P05064, May 2024

    CMS collaboration. Development of the CMS detector for the CERN LHC run 3.Journal of Instrumentation, 19(05):P05064, May 2024. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/P05064

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/19/05/p05064 2024

  6. [6]

    A Combined Secondary Vertex Based B-Tagging Algorithm in CMS

    Christian Weiser. A Combined Secondary Vertex Based B-Tagging Algorithm in CMS. Technical report, CERN, Geneva, 2006. URLhttp://cds.cern.ch/record/927399

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Jet flavor classification in high-energy physics with deep neural networks.Phys

    Daniel Guest, Julian Collado, Pierre Baldi, Shih-Chieh Hsu, Gregor Urban, and Daniel Whiteson. Jet flavor classification in high-energy physics with deep neural networks.Phys. 11 Heavy-flavor jet tagging in CMS Uttiya Sarkar on behalf of the CMS collaboration Rev. D, 94:112002, Dec 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.112002. URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.110...

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.112002 2016

  8. [8]

    E. Bols, J. Kieseler, M. Verzetti, M. Stoye, and A. Stakia. Jet flavour classification using deepjet. Journal of Instrumentation, 15(12):P12012, dec 2020. doi: 10.1088/1748-0221/15/ 12/P12012. URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-0221/15/12/P12012

    doi:10.1088/1748-0221/15/ 2020

Show all 21 references
  1. [9]

    ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds.Phys

    Huilin Qu and Loukas Gouskos. ParticleNet: Jet Tagging via Particle Clouds.Phys. Rev. D, 101(5):056019, 2020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.056019

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Improving Robustness of Jet Tagging Algorithms with Adversarial Training.Comput

    Annika Stein, Xavier Coubez, Spandan Mondal, Andrzej Novak, and Alexander Schmidt. Improving Robustness of Jet Tagging Algorithms with Adversarial Training.Comput. Softw. Big Sci., 6(1):15, 2022. doi: 10.1007/s41781-022-00087-1

    2022 doi

  3. [11]

    Transformer models for heavy flavor jet identification

    CMS Collaboration. Transformer models for heavy flavor jet identification. CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2022-050, 2022. URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/ 2839920

    2022

  4. [12]

    Particle Transformer for Jet Tagging.arXiv, 2022

    Huilin Qu, Congqiao Li, and Sitian Qian. Particle Transformer for Jet Tagging.arXiv, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03772

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Run3commissioningresultsofheavy-flavorjettaggingat √𝑠 =13.6TeV with CMS data using a modern framework for data processing

    CMSCollaboration. Run3commissioningresultsofheavy-flavorjettaggingat √𝑠 =13.6TeV with CMS data using a modern framework for data processing. CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-024, 2024. URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2898463

    2024

  6. [14]

    PerformancesummaryofAK4jetbtaggingwithdatafrom2022proton- proton collisions at 13.6 TeV with the CMS detector

    CMSCollaboration. PerformancesummaryofAK4jetbtaggingwithdatafrom2022proton- proton collisions at 13.6 TeV with the CMS detector. CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-025, 2024. URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2898464

    2024

  7. [15]

    Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration. Performance of heavy-flavour jet identification in boosted topologies in proton-proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13 TeV. CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-PAS- BTV-22-001, CERN, Geneva, 2023. URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2866276

    2023

  8. [16]

    Performance of boosted𝑏 ¯𝑏 jet tagging at√𝑠 = 13.6 TeV with Run 3 CMS data

    CMS Collaboration. Performance of boosted𝑏 ¯𝑏 jet tagging at√𝑠 = 13.6 TeV with Run 3 CMS data. CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-055, 2024. URLhttps: //cds.cern.ch/record/2904691

    2024

  9. [17]

    Larkoski, Simone Marzani, Gregory Soyez, and Jesse Thaler

    Andrew J. Larkoski, Simone Marzani, Gregory Soyez, and Jesse Thaler. Soft Drop.JHEP, 05:146, 2014. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2014)146

    2014 doi

  10. [18]

    b-hive: a modular training framework for state-of-the-art object-tagging within the Python ecosystem at the CMS experiment

    CMS Collaboration. b-hive: a modular training framework for state-of-the-art object-tagging within the Python ecosystem at the CMS experiment. CMS Detector Performance Summary CMS-DP-2024-020, 2024. URLhttps://cds.cern.ch/record/2896100

    2024

  11. [19]

    root-project/root: v6.18/02, June 2020

    Rene Brun and Fons Rademakers. root-project/root: v6.18/02, June 2020. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3895860. 12 Heavy-flavor jet tagging in CMS Uttiya Sarkar on behalf of the CMS collaboration

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    coffea, April 2024

    Lindsey Gray, Nicholas Smith, Andrzej Novak, Peter Fackeldey, Benjamin Tovar, Yi-Mu Chen, Gordon Watts, and Iason Krommydas. coffea, April 2024. URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.10977418

    2024 doi

  13. [21]

    scikit-hep/awkward-array: 0.13.0, July 2020

    JimPivarski,CharlesEscott,NicholasSmith,MichaelHedges,MasonProffitt,CharlieEscott, JaydeepNandi,JonasRembser,bfis, benkrikler, LindseyGray, DougDavis, HenrySchreiner, Nollde, Peter Fackeldey, and Pratyush Das. scikit-hep/awkward-array: 0.13.0, July 2020. URL https://doi.org/10...

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.