Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 35 references

FlexCAST: Enabling Flexible Scientific Data Analyses

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read FlexCAST preserves the design of an analysis so it can be retrained and reparametrized on new data.

desk verdict Genuine conceptual step beyond RECAST with a real public demonstrator, but the validity tests are heuristic and never shown to catch an invalid analysis, so a referee should push for negative controls. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11528 v1 pith:ZPKH4XNS submitted 2025-07-15 hep-ex hep-phphysics.data-an

Benjamin Nachman , Dennis Noll This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exhep-phphysics.data-an
keywords analysisreinterpretationRECASTanomalydetectionClassificationWithoutLabelsworkflowpreservationdata-drivenmachinelearningvaliditytestingLHC-likedata
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

The paper introduces FlexCAST, a framework for scientific data analysis reinterpretation that extends existing approaches like RECAST. RECAST preserves an analysis as a fixed function applied to new signal models; FlexCAST preserves the logic of how the analysis was designed, encoded as a functional that takes data and parameters and returns a ready-to-run analysis. This allows changes to the entire input dataset and to the analysis parametrization—retraining classifiers, adjusting signal windows, and re-optimizing selections—which is essential for data-driven machine-learning analyses such as anomaly detection. The framework rests on three principles: modularity (a DAG of parametrized tasks), validity (automated per-task tests with status reports), and robustness (designing tasks to remain valid over a wide range of data and parameters). A case study on LHC-like data shows a weakly-supervised anomaly detection analysis being flexibly rerun on new datasets, with significance of an injected signal improved from 3σ to almost 8σ.

What carries the argument

The key object is the analysis functional $F(d,p)$, which maps input data and parameters to an analysis function $f$; the analysis is decomposed into a directed acyclic graph of modular, parametrizable tasks, each with its own production, testing, and supervision logic. Task-based testing assigns green/yellow/red statuses from statistical and heuristic checks, and robustness measures are embedded in tasks (e.g., iterative fitting, classifier ensembles) to maximize the region of data/parameter space where the tests pass. This machinery carries the argument by turning 'preserve the analysis' into 'preserve the process that builds the analysis,' and by making each rebuilt analysis self-certifying through automated tests.

What would settle it

A concrete test: run a FlexCAST-preserved analysis on a new dataset with an injected signal whose mass or width lies outside the original design range, and compare the reported significance and test statuses against a manual re-analysis by a physicist. The central claim would be falsified if a configuration passes all green/yellow tests yet yields a significance that disagrees with the true injected signal, or if the flexibly retrained pipeline misses a signal that a human re-optimization of the same analysis finds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that preserving the analysis functional $F(d,p)$—the design process that produces an analysis function $f=F(d,p)$—rather than the fixed function $f$, makes an analysis fully reinterpretable. During reinterpretation, new data $d_R$ and new parameters $p_R$ produce a new function $f_R=F(d_R,p_R)$, applied to the changed data to give a new result $r_R=f_R(d_R)$. The paper argues that this enables changes to the entire input data and the complete parametrization, which the RECAST-style preservation of a fixed function cannot do, and demonstrates it with a Classification Without Labels (CWoLa) anomaly detection analysis whose classifiers are retrained and signal windows rescanned when the input dataset is changed. The authors state that a user implements not only the analysis strategy but also the logic behind how they arrived at a particular analysis strategy, including the steps taken to optimize it.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that breaking an analysis into a DAG of modular, parametrized tasks fully preserves the logic of the analysis design, so that retraining classifiers and changing parameters yields scientifically valid results, and that the automated tests—heuristic and acknowledged as non-exhaustive—are enough to certify that validity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If FlexCAST's central claim holds, data-driven analyses whose classifiers must be retrained on the data can be reinterpreted for entirely new datasets and signal hypotheses, not just new signal models on fixed selections.
  • Automated validity tests with documented status reports give analysts and reviewers a chain of validation for each reconfigured analysis, supporting publication of new results produced by a changed pipeline.
  • The modular DAG structure means that changing a parameter reruns only the affected tasks, so flexible reinterpretation can be computationally selective even though it is heavier than a fixed-function rerun.
  • FlexCAST's definition of validity—per-task automated tests on actual runtime data—extends RECAST's implicit assumption that a fixed analysis needs no revalidation, shifting the burden to explicit, checkable tests for every reconfigured analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A quantitative benchmark against a RECAST-style fixed-function rerun on the same reinterpretation tasks would directly test the paper's central design advantage; the paper argues for it by principle but does not measure it.
  • The heuristic nature of the demonstrator's validity tests (e.g., 1% and 10% loss-difference thresholds) invites a stress test that injects a pathological dataset designed to pass all tests yet produce a wrong physics conclusion, which would reveal where the validity guarantee needs strengthening.
  • The functional-preservation idea is not limited to high-energy physics: any data-dependent analysis pipeline where the optimal preprocessing or model depends on the data could be preserved as a functional and flexibly reinterpreted, provided the validity tests are made domain-specific.
  • Fine-tuning a base model rather than retraining from scratch, mentioned as future work, would reduce the computational overhead of FlexCAST and could make it the default mode for large analyses; this is an extension of the framework's robustness principle rather than something demonstrated here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. FlexCAST is a framework for the flexible reinterpretation of scientific data analyses. The paper introduces a formal distinction between an analysis function f(d), which maps input data to results, and an analysis functional F(d,p), which produces the analysis function from data and parameters. RECAST preserves f, whereas FlexCAST preserves F, allowing the entire input data and parametrization to change during reinterpretation. The implementation uses a DAG of modular, parametrized tasks; each production task can be accompanied by a test task that yields a green/yellow/red status. The framework is demonstrated on a CWoLa anomaly detection analysis with LHC Olympics data, scanning multiple signal windows across four datasets and reporting test statuses. The paper claims that this approach enables valid and robust reinterpretation of data-driven ML analyses.

Significance. FlexCAST addresses a real gap in analysis reinterpretation: standard frameworks such as RECAST assume a fixed analysis implementation, which is inadequate for data-driven methods whose behavior changes with input data. The formalization of analyses as functionals, and the emphasis on preserving the design rather than the frozen implementation, is a valuable conceptual contribution. The authors provide a complete, publicly available demonstrator with automated tests and CI/CD, which is a strength. However, the central validity claim is not yet underpinned by evidence that the task-based tests can detect invalid reinterpretations; all reported statuses are green or yellow, and the tests are acknowledged as heuristic. Thus the paper's significance will fully materialize only after the validation machinery is shown to be meaningful.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2 (Validity) and Section 4] The central claim that FlexCAST ensures scientifically meaningful results rests on the task-based tests, but the paper does not demonstrate that these tests are sensitive to invalid reinterpretations: Fig. 5b shows only green and yellow statuses, and the tests are explicitly heuristic and "not necessarily exhaustive," so a classifier trained on shuffled labels or a fit with an incorrect background model might pass all checks; the authors should add negative control experiments to prove that the tests can turn red on known-invalid configurations, or qualify the validity guarantee as conditional on test sensitivity.
  2. [Section 1 and Section 4] The claimed advantage of FlexCAST over RECAST is asserted rather than measured: the paper contrasts preserving the analysis function with preserving the analysis functional, but no baseline comparison (e.g., applying the original fixed classifier and fixed signal window to the same blackbox datasets) is provided; adding such a comparison would substantiate the claim that retraining and re-optimization are necessary for sensitivity in anomaly detection reinterpretation.
  3. [Section 3.2 (TestHistogramSpread)] The description of the p-value calculation for TestHistogramSpread is incomplete: the sum of z-scores over classifiers and bins is used to derive a p-value, but the null distribution (e.g., a normal approximation with variance equal to the number of terms, or a chi-square with a stated number of degrees of freedom) and the treatment of correlations between bins are not specified, which is necessary for reproducing and interpreting the test status.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.2] The text contains a typo: "withing" should be "within."
  2. [Code listings 1 and 2] The code listings display broken character spacing (e.g., "P r o d u c t i o n T a s k"); the formatting should be cleaned up.
  3. [Figure 5b] Figure 5b has no caption; a caption should be added to explain the bar-chart contents.
  4. [Section 4] In the dataset description, "600.000" should be written as "600,000" for English-language consistency.
  5. [Section 2] The displayed formula "Flexibility = Modularity + V alidity + Robustness" has a stray space; it should be typeset correctly.
  6. [Section 4] The phrase "the signal injected in blackbox 1 is too small to be detected" is slightly awkward; consider rephrasing to "the signal in blackbox 1 is too small to be detected."
  7. [Reference [24]] Reference [24] lacks complete publication metadata (year, journal or arXiv identifier); please complete it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FlexCAST's functional-preservation claims are architectural definitions, and the LHC Olympics case study is an externally benchmarked demonstration, not a prediction forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central chain is r = f(d) for RECAST versus f = F(d,p) and r_R = f_R(d_R) for FlexCAST. These are definitions of the framework's data flow, not derived predictions. The case study injects a known W' signal into the public LHCO dataset and reports the resulting significance; because this is a deliberately injected controlled test, reporting the measured excess is a sanity check, not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The validity concept is introduced as a design principle: Section 2 says validity is 'achieved through rigorous and automated testing of each individual function f_i and communicating the validity of the results,' and Section 4 explicitly concedes that the demonstrator tests are 'not necessarily exhaustive' and are partly heuristic. That means the framework's guarantee of scientific meaningfulness is asserted rather than demonstrated, but this is a validation gap and a correctness risk, not circular reasoning: no equation reduces to its input, and no load-bearing argument depends on an unverified self-citation. The CWoLa method [21], the benchmark signal [24], and related self-citations are background methodology or external datasets, not used to force the paper's central claim. Therefore no circular step meets the evidentiary bar.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the feasibility of preserving analysis design as a functional, on the sufficiency of task-based testing, and on the representativeness of the LHCO/CWoLa demonstrator. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are heuristic thresholds in the validity tests, not physics constants.

free parameters (3)
  • TestClassifierBias thresholds = 1% and 10% relative loss difference
    Heuristic thresholds chosen for the demonstrator test; they define what counts as valid classifier behavior in the framework's validity reports.
  • TestHistogramStats minimum count = 10 events per bin
    Heuristic threshold chosen for the demonstrator; bins below this are flagged red.
  • Background fit chi2/ndof target = <1
    Stopping criterion for iterative fitting in the Fit task; chosen by hand to balance flexibility and overfitting.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper Analyses can be represented as deterministic functions r=f(d), and analysis designs as functionals f=F(d,p) that are computable.
    This functional decomposition is the foundational abstraction of FlexCAST (Section 2, Figure 1). It assumes any analysis can be captured in this form.
  • ad hoc to paper A DAG of modular, parametrized tasks can preserve the full logic of analysis design, including data-dependent optimization steps.
    Section 3.1 asserts modular decomposition; this is the key implementation assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Task-based runtime tests with traffic-light statuses are a sufficient proxy for scientific validity of a reinterpreted analysis.
    Section 3.2 defines validity via status thresholds; the paper admits tests are not exhaustive, making this an assumption.
  • domain assumption The LHCO R&D dataset and the CWoLa method are representative of LHC-like data and state-of-the-art anomaly detection.
    Used to generalize the case-study results to broader HEP use; see Section 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FlexCAST: Enabling Flexible Scientific Data Analyses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPKH4XNS

@misc{pith2026250711528,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FlexCAST: Enabling Flexible Scientific Data Analyses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPKH4XNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11528}
}
read the original abstract

The development of scientific data analyses is a resource-intensive process that often yields results with untapped potential for reuse and reinterpretation. In many cases, a developed analysis can be used to measure more than it was designed for, by changing its input data or parametrization. Existing reinterpretation frameworks, such as RECAST, enable analysis reinterpretation by preserving the analysis implementation to allow for changes of particular parts of the input data. We introduce FlexCAST, which generalizes this concept by preserving the analysis design itself, supporting changes to the entire input data and analysis parametrization. FlexCAST is based on three core principles: modularity, validity, and robustness. Modularity enables a change of the input data and parametrization, while validity ensures that the obtained results remain meaningful, and robustness ensures that as many configurations as possible yield meaningful results. While not being limited to data-driven machine learning techniques, FlexCAST is particularly valuable for the reinterpretation of analyses in this context, where changes in the input data can significantly impact the parametrization of the analysis. Using a state-of-the-art anomaly detection analysis on LHC-like data, we showcase FlexCAST's core principles and demonstrate how it can expand the reach of scientific data analysis through flexible reuse and reinterpretation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    RECAST: Extending the Impact of Existing Analy- ses

    Kyle Cranmer and Itay Yavin. “RECAST: Extending the Impact of Existing Analy- ses”. In: JHEP 04 (2011), p. 038. doi: 10.1007/JHEP04(2011)038

    doi:10.1007/jhep04(2011)038 2011

  2. [2]

    Yadage and Packtivity - analysis preservation using parametrized workflows

    Kyle Cranmer and Lukas Heinrich. “Yadage and Packtivity - analysis preservation using parametrized workflows”. In: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 898.10 (2017), p. 102019. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/898/10/102019

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/898/10/102019 2017

  3. [3]

    Analysis Preservation and Systematic Reinter- pretation within the ATLAS experiment

    Kyle Cranmer and Lukas Heinrich. “Analysis Preservation and Systematic Reinter- pretation within the ATLAS experiment”. In: J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1085.4 (2018), p. 042011. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1085/4/042011

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/1085/4/042011 2018

  4. [4]

    RECAST framework reinterpretation of an ATLAS Dark Matter Search constraining a model of a dark Higgs boson decaying to two b-quarks

    ATLAS Collaboration. RECAST framework reinterpretation of an ATLAS Dark Matter Search constraining a model of a dark Higgs boson decaying to two b-quarks . ATL-PHYS-PUB-2019-032. Geneva: CERN, 2019

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Reinterpretation of the ATLAS Search for Displaced Hadronic Jets with the RECAST Framework

    ATLAS Collaboration. Reinterpretation of the ATLAS Search for Displaced Hadronic Jets with the RECAST Framework. ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-007. Geneva: CERN, 2020

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Search for pairs of muons with small displacements in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Search for pairs of muons with small displacements in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”. In: Physics Letters B 846 (Nov. 2023), p. 138172. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.138172

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    ATLAS Run 2 searches for electroweak production of su- persymmetric particles interpreted within the pMSSM

    ATLAS Collaboration. “ATLAS Run 2 searches for electroweak production of su- persymmetric particles interpreted within the pMSSM”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2024.5 (May 9, 2024), p. 106. doi: 10.1007/JHEP05(2024)106

    doi:10.1007/jhep05(2024)106 2024

  8. [8]

    A statistical combination of ATLAS Run 2 searches for charginos and neutralinos at the LHC

    ATLAS Collaboration. “A statistical combination of ATLAS Run 2 searches for charginos and neutralinos at the LHC”. In: Physical Review Letters 133.3 (July 19, 2024), p. 031802. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.031802

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.031802 2024

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Combination of searches for Higgs boson decays into a pho- ton and a massless dark photon using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration. “Combination of searches for Higgs boson decays into a pho- ton and a massless dark photon using $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2024.8 (Aug. 20, 2024), p. 153. doi: 10.1007/JHEP08(2024)153

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    MadAnalysis 5, a user-friendly framework for collider phenomenology

    Eric Conte, Benjamin Fuks, and Guillaume Serret. “MadAnalysis 5, a user-friendly framework for collider phenomenology”. In:Computer Physics Communications 184.1 (Jan. 2013), pp. 222–256. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2012.09.009

    2013 doi

  3. [11]

    Extending the Bump Hunt with Machine Learning

    Jack H. Collins, Kiel Howe, and Benjamin Nachman. “Extending the Bump Hunt with Machine Learning”. In: Physical Review D 99.1 (Jan. 28, 2019), p. 014038. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.014038

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    End-to-End Analysis Automation over Distributed Resources with Luigi Analysis Workflows

    Marcel Rieger. “End-to-End Analysis Automation over Distributed Resources with Luigi Analysis Workflows”. In: EPJ Web of Conferences 295 (2024), p. 05012. doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202429505012

    2024

  5. [13]

    riga/law

    Marcel Rieger. riga/law. June 30, 2025. url: https://github.com/riga/law

    2025

  6. [14]

    spotify/luigi

    The Luigi Authors. spotify/luigi. July 13, 2025. url: https://github.com/spotify/ luigi. – 17 –

    2025

  7. [15]

    An introduction to Docker for reproducible research, with examples from the R environment

    Carl Boettiger. “An introduction to Docker for reproducible research, with examples from the R environment”. In:ACM SIGOPS Operating Systems Review 49.1 (Jan. 20, 2015), pp. 71–79. doi: 10.1145/2723872.2723882

    2015

  8. [16]

    The ML test score: A rubric for ML production readiness and technical debt reduction

    Eric Breck et al. “The ML test score: A rubric for ML production readiness and technical debt reduction”. In: 2017 IEEE international conference on big data (big data). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1123–1132

    2017

  9. [17]

    Machine learning: The high interest credit card of technical debt

    David Sculley et al. “Machine learning: The high interest credit card of technical debt”. In: SE4ML: software engineering for machine learning (NIPS 2014 Workshop). Vol. 8. Cambridge, MA, 2014

    2014

  10. [18]

    Testing Scientific Software: A Systematic Literature Review

    Upulee Kanewala and James M. Bieman. “Testing Scientific Software: A Systematic Literature Review”. In: Information and software technology 56.10 (Oct. 1, 2014), pp. 1219–1232. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2014.05.006

    2014 doi

  11. [19]

    Weakly supervised anomaly detection for resonant new physics in the dijet final state using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration. Weakly supervised anomaly detection for resonant new physics in the dijet final state using proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV with the ATLAS detector. Feb. 13, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.09770

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Solving key challenges in collider physics with foundation models

    Vinicius Mikuni and Benjamin Nachman. “Solving key challenges in collider physics with foundation models”. In: Physical Review D 111.5 (Mar. 17, 2025), p. L051504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L051504

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    Classification without labels: Learning from mixed samples in high energy physics

    Eric M. Metodiev, Benjamin Nachman, and Jesse Thaler. “Classification without labels: Learning from mixed samples in high energy physics”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2017.10 (Oct. 2017), p. 174. doi: 10.1007/JHEP10(2017)174

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    The LHC Olympics 2020: A Community Challenge for Anomaly Detection in High Energy Physics

    Gregor Kasieczka et al. “The LHC Olympics 2020: A Community Challenge for Anomaly Detection in High Energy Physics”. In: Reports on Progress in Physics 84.12 (Dec. 1, 2021), p. 124201. doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/ac36b9

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Official Datasets for LHC Olympics 2020 Anomaly Detection Challenge

    Gregor Kasieczka, Benjamin Nachman, and David Shih. Official Datasets for LHC Olympics 2020 Anomaly Detection Challenge . Version v6. Nov. 19, 2019. doi: 10. 5281/zenodo.4536624

    2020

  16. [24]

    Incorporating Physical Priors into Weakly-Supervised Anomaly Detection

    Chi Lung Cheng, Gup Singh, and Benjamin Nachman. Incorporating Physical Priors into Weakly-Supervised Anomaly Detection. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.08889

    doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual

    Torbjorn Sjostrand, Stephen Mrenna, and Peter Skands. “PYTHIA 6.4 Physics and Manual”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2006.5 (May 9, 2006), pp. 026–026. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2006/05/026

    2006 doi

  18. [26]

    An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2

    Torbj¨ orn Sj¨ ostrand et al. “An Introduction to PYTHIA 8.2”. In: Computer Physics Communications 191 (June 2015), pp. 159–177. doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2015.01.024

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment

    J. de Favereau et al. “DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2014.2 (Feb. 2014), p. 57. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2014)057

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    New features in Delphes 3

    Alexandre Mertens. “New features in Delphes 3”. In: Journal of Physics: Conference Series 608.1 (Apr. 2015), p. 012045. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/608/1/012045. – 18 –

    2015 doi

  21. [29]

    Dispelling the Nˆ3 myth for the Kt jet-finder

    Matteo Cacciari and Gavin P. Salam. “Dispelling the Nˆ3 myth for the Kt jet-finder”. In: Physics Letters B 641.1 (Sept. 2006), pp. 57–61.doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2006. 08.037

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    FastJet user manual

    Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez. “FastJet user manual”. In: The European Physical Journal C 72.3 (Mar. 2012), p. 1896. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 012-1896-2

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm

    Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez. “The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2008.4 (Apr. 16, 2008), pp. 063–063. doi: 10.1088/1126-6708/2008/04/063

    2008 doi

  24. [32]

    Identifying Boosted Objects with N-subjettiness

    Jesse Thaler and Ken Van Tilburg. “Identifying Boosted Objects with N-subjettiness”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2011.3 (Mar. 2011), p. 15. doi: 10 . 1007 / JHEP03(2011)015

    2011

  25. [33]

    Maximizing Boosted Top Identification by Mini- mizing N-subjettiness

    Jesse Thaler and Ken Van Tilburg. “Maximizing Boosted Top Identification by Mini- mizing N-subjettiness”. In: Journal of High Energy Physics 2012.2 (Feb. 2012), p. 93. doi: 10.1007/JHEP02(2012)093

    2012 doi

  26. [34]

    Classifying Anomalies THrough Outer Density Estimation (CATH- ODE)

    Anna Hallin et al. “Classifying Anomalies THrough Outer Density Estimation (CATH- ODE)”. In: Physical Review D 106.5 (Sept. 6, 2022), p. 055006. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD.106.055006

    2022

  27. [35]

    REANA: A System for Reusable Research Data Analyses

    Tibor ˇSimko et al. “REANA: A System for Reusable Research Data Analyses”. In: EPJ Web of Conferences 214 (2019), p. 06034.doi: 10.1051/epjconf/201921406034. – 19 –

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.