<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>ATLAS $b$-jet identification performance and efficiency measurement with $t\bar{t}$ events in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.05120/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.05120/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>ATLAS $b$-jet identification performance and efficiency measurement with $t\bar{t}$ events in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV — mentioned by dguest</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47565069</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1907.05120:47565069</guid><pubDate>Sun, 29 Mar 2026 17:14:09 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;For better or worse the people working on this don&amp;#x27;t really use perplexity or accuracy to evaluate models. The target is whatever you&amp;#x27;d get for those metrics if you used the discriminants that were provided in the dataset (i.e. the GN2v01 values). As for why accuracy and perplexity aren&amp;#x27;t reported: the experiments generally choose a threshold to consider something a &amp;quot;b-hadron&amp;quot; (basically picking a point along the ROC curve) and quantify the TPR and FPR at that point. There are reasons for this, mostly that picking a standard point lets them verify that the simulation actually reflects data.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1907.05120/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>hep-ex</category></item></channel></rss>
