Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Analysis note: measurement of thrust in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 91 GeV with archived ALEPH data

T0 review · 3 major / 5 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 This paper reports the first fully corrected, unbinned measurement of the thrust distribution in e+e− collisions at 91.2 GeV using archived ALEPH data, obtained with a machine-learning unfolding method that returns per-event weights…

desk verdict A careful, honest reanalysis that delivers a genuinely new unbinned data product; the dominant theory uncertainty is a stated assumption about particle-level reweighting, not a hidden error. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.14349 v3 pith:5IFEHEIO submitted 2025-07-18 hep-ex

Anthony Badea , Austin Baty , Hannah Bossi , Yu-Chen Chen , Yi Chen , Jingyu Zhang , Gian Michele Innocenti , Marcello Maggi
show 10 more authors
Chris McGinn Michael Peters Tzu-An Sheng Vinicius Mikuni Matthew Avaylon Patrick Komiske Eric Metodiev Jesse Thaler Benjamin Nachman Yen-Jie Lee
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords thrusteventshapesunbinnedunfoldingmachinelearningALEPHarchiveddatae+e-collisionsquantumchromodynamicsalpha_s
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 claims that the thrust distribution from 91.2 GeV e+e− collisions can be measured from archived ALEPH data without binning, using a machine-learning unfolding that corrects each event for detector effects and returns weighted events rather than histogram entries. It presents the first fully corrected, unbinned thrust measurement from these data and shows that it agrees with the original 2004 ALEPH result while carrying comparable uncertainties. The per-event weights mean the distribution can be rebinned arbitrarily, or used directly to compute logarithmic moments and to train differential hadronization models. The motivation is that recent thrust-based extractions of the strong coupling constant $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ sit several standard deviations below the world average, so a re-measured distribution is a fresh experimental input to that tension.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is UniFold, an unbinned unfolding algorithm that iterates two neural-network classifiers: the first reweights reconstructed archived Monte Carlo events to match the data at detector level, and the second reweights the corresponding generator-level events to produce unfolded per-event weights. It is an unbinned analogue of iterative Bayesian unfolding, regularized by the number of iterations and early stopping, and stabilized by averaging over an ensemble of random network initializations. The archived Pythia 6.1 Monte Carlo provides the nominal prior, while the theoretical uncertainty is estimated by reweighting that prior to match Pythia 8, Herwig, and Sherpa at particle level using per-particle $(\log|p|,\eta,\phi)$ inputs, then unfolding through the same fixed detector response and taking the maximum bin-by-bin deviation.

What would settle it

Run Pythia 8, Herwig, and Sherpa events through the full archived ALEPH detector simulation, repeat the unbinned unfolding with the same nominal prior, and compare the resulting thrust distributions with the particle-level reweighting result; any deviation larger than the quoted theory uncertainty would show that the uncertainty estimate is too small.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the $\log \tau$ distribution ($\tau = 1-T$, with $T$ the thrust) in hadronic $Z$ decays at $\sqrt{s}=91.2$ GeV can be fully corrected for detector effects with an unbinned machine-learning unfolding, yielding a set of per-event weights on archived generator-level Monte Carlo events. The weights reproduce the particle-level thrust distribution without fixing a binning: the authors show the result binned with the original ALEPH binning and with half-width bins, recomputing uncertainties for each. They find good agreement with the ALEPH E.P.J. C (2004) measurement, with total uncertainties comparable to that measurement and dominated by the theoretical component. The claim is that this constitutes the first fully corrected, unbinned measurement of thrust in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions at 91 GeV from archived LEP 1 data.

Load-bearing premise

The theoretical uncertainty estimate assumes that reweighting the archived simulation to match three modern generators at the particle level fully captures how the choice of generator would change the detector correction, which cannot be tested because one detector simulation is unavailable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The measurement gives new experimental input to the extraction of $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ from thrust, where recent theoretical predictions report $\alpha_s(m_Z) = 0.1136 \pm 0.0012$, several standard deviations below the 2023 PDG world average of $0.1180 \pm 0.0009$.
  • Users can rebin the unfolded distribution arbitrarily and recompute the systematic uncertainties for each binning, so the same measurement can be tailored to different theoretical predictions without rerunning the unfolding.
  • Logarithmic moments of thrust, which constrain both perturbative and non-perturbative QCD effects, can be computed directly from the weighted events.
  • The weighted events can serve as training data for fully differential hadronization models, which need access to full event structure rather than a histogram.
  • The same archived-data workflow extends to other event-shape observables and to higher LEP 2 energies, enabling cross-checks up to 209 GeV.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own comparison shows that unbinned unfolding does not reduce experimental uncertainties relative to the binned 2004 result, so the practical payoff is flexibility and downstream usability rather than raw precision; reducing the dominant theory uncertainty will require regenerating detector-level simulation for modern generators.
  • If the archived detector simulation becomes available again, passing Pythia 8, Herwig, and Sherpa through it would directly test whether the particle-level reweighting procedure covers the true generator dependence, and this is the most natural next step.
  • Because the released weights are specific to the thrust observable, applying them to other observables would require care; a multi-observable unbinned unfolding that simultaneously corrects thrust, energy-energy correlators, and jet substructure would produce a more coherent archived-data legacy.
  • A direct re-extraction of $\alpha_s(m_Z)$ from the released weights using state-of-the-art next-to-next-to-next-to-leading-order thrust predictions would convert this measurement into a quantitative resolution check of the current $\alpha_s$ tension.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a measurement of the thrust distribution in e+e− collisions at sqrt(s) = 91.2 GeV using archived ALEPH 1994 data. Detector effects are corrected with the unbinned machine-learning unfolding method UniFold, using the archived Pythia 6.1 Monte Carlo as the nominal prior and reweighted Pythia 8, Herwig, and Sherpa samples to estimate theoretical uncertainties. The final result is released as per-event weights, allowing arbitrary rebinning, and is compared to the published ALEPH 2004 thrust measurement. The total uncertainty is dominated by the theoretical component.

Significance. If accepted, this would be the first unbinned, machine-learning-corrected thrust distribution from archived e+e− LEP data, with practical advantages for rebinning and downstream phenomenological use. The analysis has notable strengths: a closure test on MC pseudo-data (Figure 9), an ensemble treatment of neural-network initialization (Figure 10), bootstrapping of data and MC statistics, a detailed uncertainty breakdown (Figure 17), and public release of the analysis code and event weights. The result agrees with the ALEPH 2004 measurement within uncertainties, lending credibility to the approach. However, the dominant theoretical uncertainty rests on an assumption that cannot be validated with the currently available archived simulation, so the strength of the central claim depends on how that limitation is addressed.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 6.4, Figs. 15 and 17] The theoretical uncertainty, which dominates the total uncertainty over most of the log-tau range, is estimated by reweighting the archived Pythia 6.1 events at particle level to match Pythia 8, Herwig, and Sherpa, using only (log|p|, eta, phi) as inputs. Because GALEPH is not available, the alternative generators are never propagated through a detector simulation, so the response matrix remains the fixed archived one. This assumes that all generator differences relevant to the detector response are captured by single-particle kinematic distributions; particle-species composition and local correlations (e.g., two-track separation, neutral-hadron shower overlap) are not included. The response-matrix ratio shown in Figure 27 only displays the effect of the reweighting on the archived response and does not validate it against an alternative detector simulation. I would like to see either a dedicated test of this assumption (for example, a fast-simulation or smearing-model check on the alternative generator events), or a clear statement that the quoted Max Theory uncertainty is a prior-variation uncertainty only and not a full modeling uncertainty. As written, the claim of a fully corrected measurement with uncertainties comparable to ALEPH 2004 is stronger than the evidence supports.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Fig. 5c] The single-bin excess in the neutral-hadron cos(theta) distribution around cos(theta) ~ 0.2 is handled by removing all particles in that bin from both data and MC before the thrust distribution is calculated. This is a permanent, post hoc modification of the measured observable, and no dedicated systematic uncertainty is assigned to it. If the excess is a real physics effect (for example, a specific neutral-hadron production mechanism), removing it from both data and MC biases the unfolded distribution relative to the true hadron-level thrust; if it is a detector artifact, removing it should be validated as such. The manuscript should either quantify the effect of this removal on the unfolded thrust distribution or add a corresponding systematic uncertainty.
  3. [Sec. 7 and Sec. 8] The central result is presented as per-event weights, which is a strength. However, the abstract and conclusion describe the measurement as 'fully corrected' without qualification. Given the limitation in Section 6.4 that the theoretical uncertainty is estimated from particle-level reweighting with a fixed archived detector response, I recommend softening this wording to 'corrected using the available archived detector simulation' or adding an explicit limitation paragraph in the conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5.2, Fig. 10] The statement that 100 total trainings with N=10 per ensemble are sufficient is based on visual inspection of Figure 10; it would be helpful to quote a quantitative criterion for 'subdominant' (e.g., comparison with the statistical uncertainty from the sum of weights squared).
  2. [Sec. 6.1] The bootstrap uncertainty is estimated from only four ensembles for data and MC. With four resamples the standard deviation estimate itself has large statistical uncertainty; please show the distribution of bootstrap results or justify the choice quantitatively.
  3. [Captions of Figs. 13 and 14] The captions appear to be interchanged: Figure 13 shows the input kinematic distributions, while Figure 14 shows the log(tau) distributions after reweighting, yet the Figure 13 caption refers to 'the application of the reweighting to the log(tau) distribution is shown in (d)' and Figure 14 lists only three panels.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] The statement that the charged-lepton and pT-peak discrepancies have 'negligible' impact on the thrust distribution is not quantified; a sentence with the maximum shift in log-tau or a figure would be more informative.
  5. [Sec. 7] The sentence 'The analysis code can be found on on GitHub' contains a duplicated word; please correct it.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measurement is an unfolding of archived data with a varied MC prior; the central distribution is not used as an input and the theory uncertainty is an explicitly acknowledged approximation, not a constructed prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a fully corrected, unbinned measurement of the thrust distribution from archived ALEPH data. The derivation chain is: select events, build thrust at detector level, train a two-step classifier-based reweighting (UniFold) to map detector-level weights to generator-level weights, and thereby obtain per-event unfolding weights. The final thrust distribution is not an input to any equation that produces the measurement; it is the output of the unfolding. Closure is checked on MC pseudo-data, and the unfolding prior is varied by reweighting archived Pythia 6.1 to Pythia 8, Herwig, and Sherpa at particle level. The theoretical uncertainty is then defined as the maximum bin-by-bin deviation of the resulting unfolded distributions. This is a systematic-uncertainty prescription, not a circular derivation: the reweighting is trained on single-particle kinematics, and the paper explicitly notes that GALEPH is unavailable and that alternative generators cannot be fully propagated through the detector simulation, which is a limitation rather than a self-referential step. Appendix B's derivation that UniFold reduces to IBU in the binned limit is a formal identity and does not make the measurement circular. Self-citations to prior archived-ALEPH analyses are contextual and do not carry the load of the thrust measurement. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem from the same authors is invoked to force the choice of unfolding method or prior. The dominant theoretical uncertainty could be underestimated because particle-level reweighting may not capture all detector-response differences, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central measurement rests on the usual assumptions of archived detector simulation fidelity and generator-level prior adequacy; ML hyperparameters are tuned rather than fitted to the physics result.

free parameters (2)
  • UniFold neural network configuration = 3 dense layers x 100 nodes, batch size 2048, learning rate 5e-4, 5 iterations, ensemble of 10 seeds
    Selected via validation-loss scans among a small grid (Section 5.2); not physics parameters, but the unfolded weights depend on them, and robustness is checked by ensembling and iteration tests.
  • Alternative-MC reweighting network configuration = particle edge transformer, pretraining phase, up to 200 epochs with early stopping
    Chosen by training stability; used to map archived Pythia 6.1 to Pythia 8, Herwig, and Sherpa for the theoretical uncertainty estimate (Section 6.4).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The archived GALEPH detector simulation for 1994 conditions faithfully describes ALEPH reconstruction efficiencies and resolutions.
    Invoked throughout Sections 3 and 5.2; all unfolding and closure tests rely on this simulation as the detector response.
  • domain assumption The archived Pythia 6.1 tune is an adequate nominal generator-level prior for unfolding.
    Section 5.2 uses Pythia 6.1 as the nominal prior; Section 6.4 covers variation by reweighting to three alternative generators without true detector simulation for those alternatives.
  • domain assumption ISR/FSR removal by tracing MC particle history eliminates radiative contributions from both reco and gen samples without residual bias.
    Section 5.3 describes the cleaning procedure; no dedicated systematic is assigned to the cleaning itself.
  • standard math The neural network likelihood-ratio trick yields calibrated density ratios in this finite-sample setting.
    Section 5.2 and Appendix B rely on the likelihood ratio trick and Bayes' theorem; validation loss and closure checks are used as supporting evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis note: measurement of thrust in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 91 GeV with archived ALEPH data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5IFEHEIO

@misc{pith2026250714349,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis note: measurement of thrust in $e^+e^-$ collisions at $\sqrts$ = 91 GeV with archived ALEPH data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5IFEHEIO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.14349}
}
abstract

A measurement of the thrust distribution in $e^{+}e^{-}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 91.2$ GeV with archived data from the ALEPH experiment at the Large Electron-Positron Collider is presented. The thrust distribution is reconstructed from charged and neutral particles resulting from hadronic $Z$-boson decays. For the first time with $e^{+}e^{-}$ data, detector effects are corrected using a machine learning based method for unbinned unfolding. The measurement provides new input for resolving current discrepancies between theoretical calculations and experimental determinations of $\alpha_{s}$, constraining non-perturbative effects through logarithmic moments, developing differential hadronization models, and enabling new precision studies using the archived data.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Particle Data Group collaboration, Review of Particle Physics , PTEP 2022 (2022) 083C01

    2022

  2. [2]

    Farhi, Quantum chromodynamics test for jets , Phys

    E. Farhi, Quantum chromodynamics test for jets , Phys. Rev. Lett. 39 (1977) 1587

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    ALEPH collaboration, Studies of QCD at e+ e- centre-of-mass energies between 91-GeV and 209-GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C35 (2004) 457

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    Abbate, M

    R. Abbate, M. Fickinger, A.H. Hoang, V. Mateu and I.W. Stewart, Thrust at N 3LL with Power Corrections and a Precision Global Fit for αs(mZ), Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011) 074021 [1006.3080]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Non-Perturbative Contribution to the Thrust Distribution in $e^+ e^-$ Annihilation

    R.A. Davison and B.R. Webber, Non-Perturbative Contribution to the Thrust Distribution in e+ e- Annihilation , Eur. Phys. J. C 59 (2009) 13 [ 0809.3326]. – 26 –

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Hartgring, E

    L. Hartgring, E. Laenen and P. Skands, Antenna Showers with One-Loop Matrix Elements , JHEP 10 (2013) 127 [ 1303.4974]

    arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Benitez, A.H

    M.A. Benitez, A.H. Hoang, V. Mateu, I.W. Stewart and G. Vita, On Determining αs(mZ) from Dijets in e+e− Thrust, 2412.15164

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    B. Assi, S. H¨ oche, K. Lee and J. Thaler, QCD Theory meets Information Theory , 2501.17219

    arXiv

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Badea, A

    A. Badea, A. Baty, P. Chang, G.M. Innocenti, M. Maggi, C. Mcginn et al., Measurements of two-particle correlations in e+e− collisions at 91 GeV with ALEPH archived data , Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 212002 [ 1906.00489]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chen et al., Jet energy spectrum and substructure in e +e− collisions at 91.2 GeV with ALEPH Archived Data, JHEP 06 (2022) 008 [ 2111.09914]

    Y. Chen et al., Jet energy spectrum and substructure in e +e− collisions at 91.2 GeV with ALEPH Archived Data, JHEP 06 (2022) 008 [ 2111.09914]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bossi, Y.-C

    H. Bossi, Y.-C. Chen, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, G.M. Innocenti, A. Badea et al., Analysis note: measurement of energy-energy correlator in e+e− collisions at 91 GeV with archived ALEPH data, 2505.11828

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    ALEPH collaboration, ALEPH: A detector for electron-positron annnihilations at LEP , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A294 (1990) 121

    1990

  5. [13]

    ALEPH collaboration, Studies of QCD at e+ e- centre-of-mass energies between 91-GeV and 209-GeV, Eur. Phys. J. C 35 (2004) 457

    2004

  6. [14]

    Andreassen, P.T

    A. Andreassen, P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev, B. Nachman and J. Thaler, OmniFold: A Method to Simultaneously Unfold All Observables , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 182001 [1911.09107]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [15]

    ATLAS collaboration, Simultaneous Unbinned Differential Cross-Section Measurement of Twenty-Four Z+jets Kinematic Observables with the ATLAS Detector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 261803 [ 2405.20041]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    LHCb collaboration, Multidifferential study of identified charged hadron distributions in Z-tagged jets in proton-proton collisions at √s =13 TeV, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) L031103 [2208.11691]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    CMS collaboration, Measurement of event shapes in minimum bias events from pp collisions at 13 TeV, Tech. Rep. CMS-PAS-SMP-23-008, CERN, Geneva (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    STAR collaboration, Measurement of CollinearDrop jet mass and its correlation with SoftDrop groomed jet substructure observables in √s = 200 GeVpp collisions by STAR , 2307.07718

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    H1 collaboration, Unbinned deep learning jet substructure measurement in high Q2ep collisions at HERA , Phys. Lett. B 844 (2023) 138101 [ 2303.13620]

    2023

  12. [20]

    H1 collaboration, Machine Learning-Assisted Measurement of Lepton-Jet Azimuthal Angular Asymmetries in Deep-Inelastic Scattering at HERA , 2412.14092

  13. [21]

    Canelli, K

    F. Canelli, K. Cormier, A. Cudd, D. Gillberg, R.G. Huang, W. Jin et al., A practical guide to unbinned unfolding, 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    ALEPH collaboration, Performance of the ALEPH detector at LEP , Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 360 (1995) 481

    1995

  15. [23]

    Neugebauer, The luminossity measurement in ALEPH , Tech

    E. Neugebauer, The luminossity measurement in ALEPH , Tech. Rep. CERN-ALEPH-88-032, CERN-ALEPH-PHYSIC-88-011, CERN, Geneva (1988). – 27 –

    1988

  16. [24]

    Sjostrand, P

    T. Sjostrand, P. Eden, C. Friberg, L. Lonnblad, G. Miu, S. Mrenna et al., High-energy physics event generation with PYTHIA 6.1 , Comput. Phys. Commun. 135 (2001) 238 [hep-ph/0010017]

    2001 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Tripathee, W

    A. Tripathee, W. Xue, A. Larkoski, S. Marzani and J. Thaler, Jet Substructure Studies with CMS Open Data , Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) 074003 [ 1704.05842]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bierlich, S

    C. Bierlich, S. Chakraborty, N. Desai, L. Gellersen, I. Helenius, P. Ilten et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of pythia 8.3 , 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    B¨ ahr, S

    M. B¨ ahr, S. Gieseke, M.A. Gigg, D. Grellscheid, K. Hamilton, O. Latunde-Dada et al., Herwig++ physics and manual , The European Physical Journal C 58 (2008) 639–707

    2008

  20. [28]

    Bewick, S.F

    G. Bewick, S.F. Ravasio, S. Gieseke, S. Kiebacher, M.R. Masouminia, A. Papaefstathiou et al., Herwig 7.3 release note , 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bothmann, G

    E. Bothmann, G. Singh Chahal, S. H¨ oche, J. Krause, F. Krauss, S. Kuttimalai et al., Event generation with sherpa 2.2 , SciPost Physics 7 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    ALEPH collaboration, Studies of quantum chromodynamics with the ALEPH detector , Phys. Rept. 294 (1998) 1

    1998

  23. [31]

    Becher and M.D

    T. Becher and M.D. Schwartz, A precise determination of αs from LEP thrust data using effective field theory, JHEP 07 (2008) 034 [ 0803.0342]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Brandt and H.D

    S. Brandt and H.D. Dahmen, Axes and Scalar Measures of Two-Jet and Three-Jet Events , Z. Phys. C 1 (1979) 61

    1979

  25. [33]

    Buckley, J

    A. Buckley, J. Butterworth, D. Grellscheid, H. Hoeth, L. L¨ onnblad, J. Monk et al., Rivet user manual, Computer Physics Communications 184 (2013) 2803

    2013

  26. [34]

    Buckley, Thrust.hh source file, RIVET Hep Forge (2011)

    A. Buckley, Thrust.hh source file, RIVET Hep Forge (2011)

    2011

  27. [35]

    Belle II Software: Thrust class

    Belle II Collaboration, “Belle II Software: Thrust class. ” https://software.belle2.org/prerelease-10-00-00a/doxygen/classBelle2_1_ 1Thrust.html#a82233fb167d2bdefb9b3b9e2450c30a9, 2025

    2025

  28. [36]

    Neyman and E.S

    J. Neyman and E.S. Pearson, On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 231 (1933) 289

    1933

  29. [37]

    Hastie, R

    T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani and J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning , Springer (2009), 10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7

    2009 doi

  30. [38]

    Miller, C

    B.K. Miller, C. Weniger and P. Forr´ e,Contrastive Neural Ratio Estimation for Simulation-based Inference, 2210.06170

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sugiyama, T

    M. Sugiyama, T. Suzuki and T. Kanamori, Density Ratio Estimation in Machine Learning , Cambridge University Press (2012)

    2012

  32. [40]

    Cranmer, J

    K. Cranmer, J. Pavez and G. Louppe, Approximating Likelihood Ratios with Calibrated Discriminative Classifiers, 1506.02169

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Nachman and J

    B. Nachman and J. Thaler, Learning from many collider events at once , Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 116013

    2021

  34. [42]

    Rizvi, M

    S. Rizvi, M. Pettee and B. Nachman, Learning likelihood ratios with neural network classifiers, JHEP 02 (2024) 136 [ 2305.10500]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D’Agostini, Improved iterative bayesian unfolding, 2010

    G. D’Agostini, Improved iterative bayesian unfolding, 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    Falc˜ ao and A

    A. Falc˜ ao and A. Takacs,High-dimensional unfolding in large backgrounds , 2025. – 28 –

    2025

  37. [45]

    Analysis code repository for the measurement of thrust in e+e− with archived ALEPH data from LEP

    A. Badea, “Analysis code repository for the measurement of thrust in e+e− with archived ALEPH data from LEP. ”https://github.com/badeaa3/unfold-ee-logtau/, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Chen, Y.-J

    Y.-C. Chen, Y.-J. Lee, Y. Chen, P. Chang, C. McGinn, T.-A. Sheng et al., Analysis note: two-particle correlation in e+e− collisions at 91-209 gev with archived aleph data , 2024

    2024

  39. [47]

    Y.-C. Chen, Y. Chen, A. Badea, A. Baty, G.M. Innocenti, M. Maggi et al., Long-range near-side correlation in e+e- collisions at 183-209 gev with aleph archived data , Physics Letters B 856 (2024) 138957

    2024

  40. [48]

    Benedikt, A

    M. Benedikt, A. Blondel, O. Brunner, M. Capeans Garrido, F. Cerutti, J. Gutleber et al., FCC-ee: The Lepton Collider: Future Circular Collider Conceptual Design Report Volume 2. Future Circular Collider, Tech. Rep. 2, CERN, Geneva (2019), DOI

    2019

  41. [49]

    Accardi, Y.T

    A. Accardi, Y.T. Chien, D. d’Enterria, A. Deshpande, C. Dilks, P.A.G. Garcia et al., Opportunities for precision qcd physics in hadronization at belle ii – a snowmass whitepaper , 2022. – 29 – A Supplemental material The kinematic distributions of all charged tracks, leptons, ...

    2022

Pith tools

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