Jet Image Tagging Using Deep Learning: An Ensemble Model

Arghya Chattopadhyay; Juvenal Bassa; Sudhir Malik; Vidya Manian

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 37 references

Jet Image Tagging Using Deep Learning: An Ensemble Model

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An ensemble that concatenates ResNet50 and InceptionV3 image features tags jets more accurately than either network alone on the JetNet dataset.

desk verdict Competent, honest empirical study of a known idea—ensemble of two pretrained CNNs for jet images—with real but small gains, and statistics that need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.10034 v1 pith:HBNLHPBO submitted 2025-08-09 physics.data-an cs.AIcs.LGhep-exhep-ph

Juvenal Bassa , Vidya Manian , Sudhir Malik , Arghya Chattopadhyay This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.data-ancs.AIcs.LGhep-exhep-ph

keywords jettaggingensemblelearningconvolutionalneuralnetworksResNet50InceptionV3Netdatasetimagesdeep

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 sets out to establish that jet tagging improves when two convolutional networks with different architectural strengths are run as a single ensemble. On the JetNet dataset, each jet is converted into a $299\times299$ image whose pixel intensity is the relative transverse momentum $p_T^{\mathrm{rel}}$ in the $(\eta_{\mathrm{rel}},\phi_{\mathrm{rel}})$ plane, cropped to $[-0.4,0.4]$ in both directions. The same image is fed to ResNet50 and InceptionV3, both pretrained on ImageNet, and their final feature vectors are concatenated before a fusion layer and softmax classifier. Across binary gluon-versus-X tasks and a five-class task, the ensemble reaches testing accuracies up to 0.91 and AUC up to 0.97, beating either component network. If true, this offers a computationally modest route to competitive jet classification without the very large training sets used by particle-level transformer models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the fusion layer at the top of the ensemble: it concatenates the 1024-dimensional global-average-pooled feature vector from ResNet50 with the 2048-dimensional average-pooled feature vector from InceptionV3, forming a 3072-dimensional representation that is projected to 512 units and then to a softmax classifier. This concatenation is what lets the network exploit two complementary inductive biases: residual depth that captures compact, localized energy patterns, and multi-scale inception convolutions that capture spatially distributed substructure. The images themselves are the input representation: $299\times299$ histograms of relative transverse momentum $p_T^{\m

What would settle it

Train the same Ensemble Model on the same JetNet classes but with the full available ranges $\eta_{\mathrm{rel}}\in[-1.6,1.0]$ and $\phi_{\mathrm{rel}}\in[-0.5,0.5]$, or with a different binning, keeping the same folds and epochs. If the ensemble no longer beats both ResNet50 and InceptionV3 on held-out accuracy and AUC, the claimed superiority is an artifact of the $[-0.4,0.4]$ crop rather than a property of feature concatenation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Ensemble Model—ResNet50 and InceptionV3 fused by concatenating their post-pooling feature vectors (1024 plus 2048 dimensions), projecting to 512, and applying softmax—achieves better jet classification than either network alone. On balanced, stratified JetNet data (170,000 images per class, 80/20 train-test split, 5-fold cross-validation, 15 epochs per fold), the ensemble outperforms both components in every binary gluon-versus-class task and in the five-class task. The strongest binary results are testing accuracy 0.9175 with AUC 0.973 for gluon versus W and 0.9122 with AUC 0.974 for gluon versus Z; multi-class testing accuracy is 0.7508 with average AUC 0.935.

Load-bearing premise

The central claim depends on the choice to crop each jet to $\eta_{\mathrm{rel}}, \phi_{\mathrm{rel}} \in [-0.4, 0.4]$ and bin it into a $299\times299$ image whose pixel intensity is the relative transverse momentum; if particles outside this crop carry discriminative signal, the reported accuracies are tied to this preprocessing rather than to the ensemble itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The ensemble beats both single networks in all four binary gluon-versus-X tasks and in the five-class task, with the largest AUC reaching 0.974 for gluon versus Z.
The performance edge is stable: mean AUC across random seeds is 0.9342 with standard deviation 0.0002, and t-tests give p-values below $10^{-8}$ against each component.
Pretrained ImageNet initialization matters: with random initialization, multi-class testing accuracy drops from 0.7508 to 0.7007 and AUC from 0.935 to 0.902.
The ensemble adds only a modest computational overhead (roughly 3–6% more training time than the slower single network) while improving accuracy.
The approach reaches about 75% multi-class accuracy using fewer than one million training jets, which the authors contrast with particle-level models trained on 100 million jets, while cautioning that direct numerical comparison across datasets is inappropriate.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension, left untested in the paper, is whether the same feature-concatenation recipe transfers to richer datasets like JetClass or to transformer-based vision backbones; the paper lists both as future work.
The absolute accuracies are tied to the $[-0.4,0.4]$ crop and $299\times299$ binning; no alternative preprocessing was tested, so the ensemble's advantage is established only within this representation.
The Grad-CAM evidence of complementarity suggests a concrete next experiment: compare concatenated deep features against late fusion of per-network class probabilities, or add a third diverse backbone, to see whether the gain scales with architectural diversity.
Because ImageNet-pretrained weights already help on physics images, part of the reported accuracy may be inherited from generic low-level edges rather than physics-specific features; freezing early layers or training from scratch for more epochs would separate those contributions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Paul,

Quick take: this is a plainly written, competent empirical study that does what it says—puts two pretrained CNNs together in a late-fusion ensemble, applies them to JetNet jet images, and shows the ensemble edges out either network on point estimates. Nothing conceptually new: ensembling and jet images are both established, and the authors cite the relevant work. The contribution is the specific configuration plus an honest ablation and a public GitHub repo. Worth a look, but not a major step for the field.

What it does well: preprocessing is described carefully (crop, binning, max 30 particles), the ablation is a real ablation (each network independently with the same fusion layer), the multi-class comparison includes repeated runs across seeds, and the Grad-CAM check is a reasonable sanity test. The authors also explicitly warn that a direct numeric comparison to JetClass-trained models is inappropriate—right call.

Where it gets soft is the statistics. The main tables give averaged test accuracies and AUCs with no standard deviations or error bars, and the binary gains are small (0.5–1.6% accuracy, 0.004–0.009 AUC). The only formal significance test appears in Section 4.2.2, described as an unpaired two-sample t-test between model accuracies. That is mis-specified for 5-fold cross-validation: the folds are paired, and an unpaired test ignores that pairing and inflates significance. With only five folds, the normality assumption is also fragile. Separately, validation accuracy is systematically lower than test accuracy in every table—unusual and unexplained, making me suspect the evaluation pipeline does something non-standard (e.g., validation measured at an earlier epoch, or a test split that is accidentally easier). None of this means the ensemble advantage is false; the direction is consistent across all tasks. But the paper's claim of 'superior performance' is not as firmly supported as the text suggests.

The crop choice (eta/phi within ±0.4) is plausible given the jet radius but untested; wide subjets from tops and W/Z bosons could lose signal. Minor.

Who this is for: someone assembling a baseline pipeline for jet-image tagging on JetNet, or teaching an applied-DL course. It deserves a serious referee—the empirical work is real and reproducible—but the referee should ask for corrected significance testing, error bars on the main tables, and an explanation of the validation/test inversion. If those come back clean, the paper is fine as a modest application note.

My verdict: send to peer review, expect heavy revision. I would not cite it in the next year.

—

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies jet tagging on the JetNet dataset by converting point-cloud jets into 299x299 images: relative transverse momenta are binned in the (eta_rel, phi_rel) plane, cropped to [-0.4,0.4], with at most 30 particles per jet. The proposed Ensemble Model (EM) concatenates the 1024-d feature vector from ResNet50 and the 2048-d vector from InceptionV3, projects the concatenation through a 512-d fusion layer, and ends in a softmax classifier. Binary tasks (gluon vs light-quark, top, W, Z) and a five-class task are evaluated with 5-fold cross-validation, 15 epochs per fold, reporting accuracy, AUC, and ROC curves, together with a component-wise ablation, t-tests, and Grad-CAM analysis. The central claim is that the EM outperforms either constituent network on these tasks.

Significance. The paper is a modest but clearly scoped application of standard CNN ensembles to jet images. Its strengths are the component-wise ablation, the inclusion of a no-pretraining comparison, the use of 5-fold CV, and the public code repository. If the statistical evidence were repaired, the result would be a useful data point that feature-level fusion of two ImageNet-pretrained CNNs can improve JetNet tagging over either network alone. The main weakness is that the central comparative claim currently rests on small point-estimate differences without uncertainty quantification, and the only formal significance test is mis-specified and limited to the multi-class case.

major comments (3)

[Section 4.2.2, t-test paragraph] The tests are described as 'unpaired two-sample t-tests between the model accuracies.' Under a 5-fold cross-validation design, the three models are evaluated on the same folds, so the samples are paired, not independent; an unpaired test discards this pairing and can overstate significance. In addition, significance testing is reported only for the multi-class task, while the binary comparisons in Tables 2-5 are the core comparative claim. Please replace this with a paired test (e.g., paired t-test or Wilcoxon signed-rank) on per-fold metrics, report the number of paired observations and effect sizes, and apply the same procedure to all four binary tasks. As written, the extremely small p-values (3.57e-8, 2.2e-9, 2.76e-6) cannot be checked because no per-fold data are shown.
[Tables 2-6] Only mean accuracy and AUC point estimates are reported; there are no per-fold values or standard deviations. The EM gains in the binary tasks are small (accuracy +0.004 to +0.016, AUC +0.004 to +0.013), so without error bars they are consistent with fold-to-fold noise. The statement in Section 4.1 that the EM 'exhibits narrower performance fluctuations' is not supported by any reported dispersion measure. Please report per-fold metrics or confidence intervals for all models and tasks; this is necessary to support the central claim of ensemble superiority.
[Tables 2-6 and Section 3.2] Validation accuracy is consistently lower than testing accuracy (e.g., Table 2: 0.7632 vs 0.7940; Table 6: 0.7298 vs 0.7508). This pattern is atypical and requires explanation. The text describes an 80/20 training-validation/testing split and then a 5-fold cross-validation protocol, but it is not clear how the folds relate to the 80% subset or how final test metrics are computed. Please clarify the exact evaluation pipeline: what the validation folds are used for, whether early stopping or model selection is applied, and how the reported test numbers are averaged. Without this, the reported point estimates are not directly interpretable.

minor comments (3)

[Section 5, first paragraph] The text states that the EM achieved testing accuracy up to 0.91 and AUC of 0.97 for 'both the g-jet vs. W-jet as well as the g-jet vs. t-jet cases.' Table 3 gives t-jet AUC 0.950, while Table 4 (W) gives 0.973 and Table 5 (Z) gives 0.974. The 'both' claim is therefore incorrect unless it refers to W and Z.
[Section 4.2, text above Table 6] The sentence 'InceptionV3 (when InceptionV3 was removed)' should read 'InceptionV3 (when ResNet50 was removed).'
[Section 2, first paragraph] Typo: 'JeTNet' should be 'JetNet.' Also, the relationship between the 30-particle cutoff and the later image-based analysis is not discussed; a one-sentence justification would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper reports an empirical benchmark comparison; the ensemble claim is measured, not derived from its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that an ensemble of ResNet50 and InceptionV3 achieves higher jet-tagging accuracy and AUC than either constituent network on the JetNet dataset. This is an empirical measurement under a described training and cross-validation protocol, not a derivation from fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The ensemble architecture is explicitly defined by concatenating the two networks' feature vectors (Section 3.1), and the component-wise analysis is an ablation, not a circular construction: disabling the concatenation still leaves the fusion layer, but that is a stated implementation detail, not a way of encoding the target result into the inputs. The jet-image representation (crop to |eta_rel|,|phi_rel| <= 0.4 and 299x299 binning) is a preprocessing choice whose information loss the paper acknowledges; it is an assumption, not a circular step. Self-citations (GitHub repository link, JetNet dataset papers) provide data and code, not load-bearing mathematical or uniqueness claims. The paper explicitly disclaims a direct numerical comparison with JetClass performances, so no imported benchmark is being silently used as a target. The statistical concerns raised by the skeptic—the 'unpaired two-sample t-tests' being inappropriate for paired 5-fold CV and the lack of error bars on binary accuracy differences—are validity/correctness issues about the strength of the evidence, not circularity. They do not make the central claim reduce to its inputs. Hence the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is an empirical ML study; its central claim rests on the chosen image representation, the transfer of ImageNet features, and the specific training setup rather than on a derived equation. The hyperparameters listed are hand-chosen and affect the reported metrics, so they are counted as free parameters.

free parameters (6)

initial learning rate = 3e-4
Set in Section 3.2 for the Adam optimizer; chosen by hand, not optimized.
number of epochs per fold = 15
Limited by computational resources (Section 3.2); not tuned.
image resolution = 299x299 pixels
Chosen to match InceptionV3 input size and balance bin width and sparsity (Section 2).
cropping window = eta_rel, phi_rel in [-0.4, 0.4]
Chosen to avoid sparse images; discards particles outside the window (Section 2).
maximum particles per jet = 30
Kept as the maximum number of highest-pT particles from JetNet (Section 2).
fusion layer dimension = 512
Set as a dense projection hyperparameter in the ensemble architecture (Section 3.1).

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Jet images retain discriminative structure of jets
Section 2 argues the geometric shape of showers encodes source particle properties; this is the premise for using image-based CNNs.
domain assumption The (eta_rel, phi_rel) histogram with pixel intensity p_rel^T represents jet energy distribution
Section 2 defines the jet image as a binned histogram; correctness of this representation is assumed.
domain assumption ImageNet pretrained weights transfer to jet images
The ensemble uses ImageNet initialization (Section 3.2). The benefit is empirically tested in Section 4.2.2 (Table 7), but the transfer premise is not derived.
standard math Five-fold cross-validation gives reliable performance estimates
Standard practice for model evaluation; the paper assumes this yields unbiased performance estimates (Section 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jet Image Tagging Using Deep Learning: An Ensemble Model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HBNLHPBO

@misc{pith2026250810034,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jet Image Tagging Using Deep Learning: An Ensemble Model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HBNLHPBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.10034}
}

read the original abstract

Jet classification in high-energy particle physics is important for understanding fundamental interactions and probing phenomena beyond the Standard Model. Jets originate from the fragmentation and hadronization of quarks and gluons, and pose a challenge for identification due to their complex, multidimensional structure. Traditional classification methods often fall short in capturing these intricacies, necessitating advanced machine learning approaches. In this paper, we employ two neural networks simultaneously as an ensemble to tag various jet types. We convert the jet data to two-dimensional histograms instead of representing them as points in a higher-dimensional space. Specifically, this ensemble approach, hereafter referred to as Ensemble Model, is used to tag jets into classes from the JetNet dataset, corresponding to: Top Quarks, Light Quarks (up or down), and W and Z bosons. For the jet classes mentioned above, we show that the Ensemble Model can be used for both binary and multi-categorical classification. This ensemble approach learns jet features by leveraging the strengths of each constituent network achieving superior performance compared to either individual network.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

[1]

The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC.Journal of instrumentation, 3(August 2008):1–334, 2008

CMS Collaboration. The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC.Journal of instrumentation, 3(August 2008):1–334, 2008. – 19 –

work page 2008
[2]

The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

Marcello Abbrescia, L Barbone, P Cariola, F Chiumarulo, A Clemente, A Colaleo, D Creanza, N De Filippis, Mauro DE PALMA, G De Robertis, et al. The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. JOURNAL OF INSTRUMENTATION, 3, 2008

work page 2008
[3]

Jet substructure at the large hadron collider.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045003, 2019

Roman Kogler, Benjamin Nachman, Alexander Schmidt, Lily Asquith, Emma Winkels, Mario Campanelli, Chris Delitzsch, Philip Harris, Andreas Hinzmann, Deepak Kar, et al. Jet substructure at the large hadron collider.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045003, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

The lund jet plane.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(12):1–42, 2018

Frédéric A Dreyer, Gavin P Salam, and Grégory Soyez. The lund jet plane.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(12):1–42, 2018

work page 2018
[5]

Observationofanewparticleinthesearchforthestandardmodelhiggsboson with the atlas detector at the lhc.Physics Letters B, 716:1–29, 2012

ATLASCollaboration. Observationofanewparticleinthesearchforthestandardmodelhiggsboson with the atlas detector at the lhc.Physics Letters B, 716:1–29, 2012

work page 2012
[6]

Jet substructure at the large hadron collider: a review of recent advances in theory and machine learning.Physics Reports, 841:1–63, 2020

Andrew J Larkoski, Ian Moult, and Benjamin Nachman. Jet substructure at the large hadron collider: a review of recent advances in theory and machine learning.Physics Reports, 841:1–63, 2020

work page 2020
[7]

Modern Machine Learning and Particle Physics

Matthew D Schwartz. Modern machine learning and particle physics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12226, 2021

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[8]

Jet tagging via particle clouds.Physical Review D, 101(5), March 2020

Huilin Qu and Loukas Gouskos. Jet tagging via particle clouds.Physical Review D, 101(5), March 2020

work page 2020

Show all 37 references

[9]

Particle transformer for jet tagging

Huilin Qu, Congqiao Li, and Sitian Qian. Particle transformer for jet tagging. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 18281–18292. PMLR, 2022

2022
[10]

An efficient lorentz equivariant graph neural network for jet tagging.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(7):1–22, 2022

Shiqi Gong, Qi Meng, Jue Zhang, Huilin Qu, Congqiao Li, Sitian Qian, Weitao Du, Zhi-Ming Ma, and Tie-Yan Liu. An efficient lorentz equivariant graph neural network for jet tagging.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(7):1–22, 2022

2022
[11]

Jet tagging via particle clouds.Physical Review D, 101(5):056019, 2020

Huilin Qu and Loukas Gouskos. Jet tagging via particle clouds.Physical Review D, 101(5):056019, 2020

2020
[12]

Particle cloud generation with message passing generative adversarial networks

Raghav Kansal, Javier Duarte, Hao Su, Breno Orzari, Thiago Tomei, Maurizio Pierini, Mary Touranakou, Jean-Roch Vlimant, and Dimitrios Gunopulos. Particle cloud generation with message passing generative adversarial networks. In M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Lian...

2021
[13]

Particle cloud generation with message passing generative adversarial networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:23858–23871, 2021

Raghav Kansal, Javier Duarte, Hao Su, Breno Orzari, Thiago Tomei, Maurizio Pierini, Mary Touranakou, Dimitrios Gunopulos, et al. Particle cloud generation with message passing generative adversarial networks.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:23858–23871, 2021

2021
[14]

Quark versus gluon jet tagging using jet images with the atlas detector

ATLAS collaboration et al. Quark versus gluon jet tagging using jet images with the atlas detector. 2017

2017
[15]

Jet-images: computer vision inspired techniques for jet tagging.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(2):1–16, 2015

Josh Cogan, Michael Kagan, Emanuel Strauss, and Ariel Schwarztman. Jet-images: computer vision inspired techniques for jet tagging.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(2):1–16, 2015

2015
[16]

Jet-images—deep learning edition.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(7):1–32, 2016

Luke de Oliveira, Michael Kagan, Lester Mackey, Benjamin Nachman, and Ariel Schwartzman. Jet-images—deep learning edition.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(7):1–32, 2016

2016
[17]

Jet-images — deep learning edition.JHEP, 07:069, 2016

Luke de Oliveira, Michael Kagan, Lester Mackey, Benjamin Nachman, and Ariel Schwartzman. Jet-images — deep learning edition.JHEP, 07:069, 2016

2016
[18]

Deep learning and its application to lhc physics

Dan Guest, Kyle Cranmer, and Daniel Whiteson. Deep learning and its application to lhc physics. Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 68(1):161–181, 2018. – 20 –

2018
[19]

Deep residual learning for image recognition

Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016

2016
[20]

Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision

Christian Szegedy, Vincent Vanhoucke, Sergey Ioffe, Jon Shlens, and Zbigniew Wojna. Rethinking the inception architecture for computer vision. In2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 2818–2826, 2016

2016
[21]

Ensemble-based classifiers.Artificial intelligence review, 33:1–39, 2010

Lior Rokach. Ensemble-based classifiers.Artificial intelligence review, 33:1–39, 2010

2010
[22]

JetNet: A Python package for accessingopendatasetsandbenchmarkingmachinelearningmethodsinhighenergyphysics

Raghav Kansal, Carlos Pareja, Zichun Hao, and Javier Duarte. JetNet: A Python package for accessingopendatasetsandbenchmarkingmachinelearningmethodsinhighenergyphysics. Journal of Open Source Software, 8(90):5789, 2023

2023
[23]

Point cloud jet images tagging using dl

Juvenal Bassa and Arghya Chattopadhyay. Point cloud jet images tagging using dl. https://github.com/Basjuven/Point-Cloud-jet-images-tagging-using-DL , 2025

2025
[24]

Salam, and Gregory Soyez

Matteo Cacciari, Gavin P. Salam, and Gregory Soyez. The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm.JHEP, 04:063, 2008

2008
[25]

Jetnet dataset, 2022

Supriya Kansal, Yung-Hsiang Chien, Raghav Narain, David Shih, and Jesse Thaler. Jetnet dataset, 2022

2022
[26]

Machine learning at the energy and intensity frontiers of particle physics.Nature, 560(7716):41–48, 2018

Alexander Radovic, Mike Williams, David Rousseau, Michael Kagan, Daniele Bonacorsi, Alexander Himmel, Adam Aurisano, Kazuhiro Terao, and Taritree Wongjirad. Machine learning at the energy and intensity frontiers of particle physics.Nature, 560(7716):41–48, 2018

2018
[27]

Stacked generalization.Neural networks, 5(2):241–259, 1992

David H Wolpert. Stacked generalization.Neural networks, 5(2):241–259, 1992

1992
[28]

Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database.Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 248–255, 2009

Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database.Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 248–255, 2009

2009
[29]

Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015

Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization.International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2015

2015
[30]

Springer, 2006

Christopher M Bishop.Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. Springer, 2006

2006
[31]

A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection

Sylvain Arlot and Xavier Celisse. A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Statistics Surveys, 4:40–79, 2010

2010
[32]

Is k-fold cross validation the best model selection method for machine learning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16407, 2024

Juan M Gorriz, R Martin Clemente, F Segovia, J Ramirez, A Ortiz, and J Suckling. Is k-fold cross validation the best model selection method for machine learning?arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16407, 2024

2024 arXiv
[33]

A guide to cross-validation for artificial intelligence in medical imaging.Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, 5(4):e230158, 2023

Tyler J Bradshaw, Guangyu Shih, Benjamin A Goldstein, Keyvan Farahani, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Tessa S Cook, Charles E Kahn, James A Brink, Keith J Dreyer, et al. A guide to cross-validation for artificial intelligence in medical imaging.Radiology: Arti...

2023
[34]

Roc analysis in clinical chemistry: basic concepts and applications

Michael H Zweig and Gregory Campbell. Roc analysis in clinical chemistry: basic concepts and applications. Clinical chemistry, 39(4):561–577, 1993

1993
[35]

Ablation studies in artificial neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08644, 2019

Richard Meyes, Melanie Lu, Constantin Waubert de Puiseau, and Tobias Meisen. Ablation studies in artificial neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08644, 2019

1901 arXiv
[36]

Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, andDhruv Batra

Ramprasaath R. Selvaraju, Michael Cogswell, Abhishek Das, Ramakrishna Vedantam, Devi Parikh, andDhruv Batra. Grad-cam: Visualexplanationsfrom deepnetworksvia gradient-basedlocalization. International Journal of Computer Vision, 128(2):336–359, October 2019. – 21 –

2019
[37]

Deep learning in physics: Challenges and opportunities.European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 95:02001, 2015

Pierre Baldi and Peter Sadowski. Deep learning in physics: Challenges and opportunities.European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 95:02001, 2015. – 22 –

2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC.Journal of instrumentation, 3(August 2008):1–334, 2008

CMS Collaboration. The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC.Journal of instrumentation, 3(August 2008):1–334, 2008. – 19 –

work page 2008

[2] [2]

The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC

Marcello Abbrescia, L Barbone, P Cariola, F Chiumarulo, A Clemente, A Colaleo, D Creanza, N De Filippis, Mauro DE PALMA, G De Robertis, et al. The CMS experiment at the CERN LHC. JOURNAL OF INSTRUMENTATION, 3, 2008

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Jet substructure at the large hadron collider.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045003, 2019

Roman Kogler, Benjamin Nachman, Alexander Schmidt, Lily Asquith, Emma Winkels, Mario Campanelli, Chris Delitzsch, Philip Harris, Andreas Hinzmann, Deepak Kar, et al. Jet substructure at the large hadron collider.Reviews of Modern Physics, 91(4):045003, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

The lund jet plane.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(12):1–42, 2018

Frédéric A Dreyer, Gavin P Salam, and Grégory Soyez. The lund jet plane.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2018(12):1–42, 2018

work page 2018

[5] [5]

Observationofanewparticleinthesearchforthestandardmodelhiggsboson with the atlas detector at the lhc.Physics Letters B, 716:1–29, 2012

ATLASCollaboration. Observationofanewparticleinthesearchforthestandardmodelhiggsboson with the atlas detector at the lhc.Physics Letters B, 716:1–29, 2012

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Jet substructure at the large hadron collider: a review of recent advances in theory and machine learning.Physics Reports, 841:1–63, 2020

Andrew J Larkoski, Ian Moult, and Benjamin Nachman. Jet substructure at the large hadron collider: a review of recent advances in theory and machine learning.Physics Reports, 841:1–63, 2020

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Modern Machine Learning and Particle Physics

Matthew D Schwartz. Modern machine learning and particle physics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.12226, 2021

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[8] [8]

Jet tagging via particle clouds.Physical Review D, 101(5), March 2020

Huilin Qu and Loukas Gouskos. Jet tagging via particle clouds.Physical Review D, 101(5), March 2020

work page 2020