{
  "id": 17142,
  "title": "First place solution",
  "url": "/competitions/flavours-of-physics/discussion/17142",
  "author_name": "Alexander Guschin",
  "post_date": "2015-10-23T19:08:30.747000",
  "votes": 13,
  "comment_count": 3,
  "views": 1681,
  "content": "<p>Hi everyone!</p>\n\n<p>Finally, here goes our solution. We should have posted it a bit earlier, but I hope everyone will still find something interesting in it anyway. You will find model explanation in .pdf and code in .ipynb files. We tried to make solution consize for sake of convenience.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://github.com/aguschin/flavours-of-physics\">https://github.com/aguschin/flavours-of-physics</a></p>",
  "messages": [
    {
      "id": 97193,
      "postDate": "2015-10-23T19:08:30.747Z",
      "content": "<p>Hi everyone!</p>\n\n<p>Finally, here goes our solution. We should have posted it a bit earlier, but I hope everyone will still find something interesting in it anyway. You will find model explanation in .pdf and code in .ipynb files. We tried to make solution consize for sake of convenience.</p>\n\n<p><a href=\"https://github.com/aguschin/flavours-of-physics\">https://github.com/aguschin/flavours-of-physics</a></p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Hi everyone!\r\n\r\nFinally, here goes our solution. We should have posted it a bit earlier, but I hope everyone will still find something interesting in it anyway. You will find model explanation in .pdf and code in .ipynb files. We tried to make solution consize for sake of convenience.\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/aguschin/flavours-of-physics",
      "votes": 13
    },
    {
      "id": 97334,
      "postDate": "2015-10-26T06:10:10.117Z",
      "content": "<p>Nice xgboost solution! I am having the same question as to the second place solution that, I see the invariant mass and its relativity boosting scale factor variables are implicitly and explicitly used, are they physical sound? Models with invariant mass are questionable from my mind because this model should not depend too much on mass. Seems like the top solutions are all heavily depending invariant mass while other good features are ignored: if the real life can be simplified like this.</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Nice xgboost solution! I am having the same question as to the second place solution that, I see the invariant mass and its relativity boosting scale factor variables are implicitly and explicitly used, are they physical sound? Models with invariant mass are questionable from my mind because this model should not depend too much on mass. Seems like the top solutions are all heavily depending invariant mass while other good features are ignored: if the real life can be simplified like this.",
      "votes": 1
    },
    {
      "id": 479017,
      "postDate": "2019-02-26T23:17:05.863Z",
      "rawMarkdown": "",
      "isDeleted": true
    },
    {
      "id": 97279,
      "postDate": "2015-10-25T02:54:37.533Z",
      "content": "<p>Congrats and thank you for sharing !!!</p>",
      "rawMarkdown": "Congrats and thank you for sharing !!!"
    }
  ],
  "comments": [
    {
      "id": 97334,
      "author_name": "phunter",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "2015-10-26T06:10:10.117000",
      "content": "<p>Nice xgboost solution! I am having the same question as to the second place solution that, I see the invariant mass and its relativity boosting scale factor variables are implicitly and explicitly used, are they physical sound? Models with invariant mass are questionable from my mind because this model should not depend too much on mass. Seems like the top solutions are all heavily depending invariant mass while other good features are ignored: if the real life can be simplified like this.</p>",
      "votes": 1,
      "replies": []
    },
    {
      "id": 479017,
      "author_name": "",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "2019-02-26T23:17:05.863000",
      "content": "",
      "votes": 0,
      "replies": []
    },
    {
      "id": 97279,
      "author_name": "AI_JOE",
      "author_url": "",
      "post_date": "2015-10-25T02:54:37.533000",
      "content": "<p>Congrats and thank you for sharing !!!</p>",
      "votes": 0,
      "replies": []
    }
  ],
  "raw_markdown_by_id": {
    "97193": "Hi everyone!\r\n\r\nFinally, here goes our solution. We should have posted it a bit earlier, but I hope everyone will still find something interesting in it anyway. You will find model explanation in .pdf and code in .ipynb files. We tried to make solution consize for sake of convenience.\r\n\r\nhttps://github.com/aguschin/flavours-of-physics",
    "97334": "Nice xgboost solution! I am having the same question as to the second place solution that, I see the invariant mass and its relativity boosting scale factor variables are implicitly and explicitly used, are they physical sound? Models with invariant mass are questionable from my mind because this model should not depend too much on mass. Seems like the top solutions are all heavily depending invariant mass while other good features are ignored: if the real life can be simplified like this.",
    "479017": "",
    "97279": "Congrats and thank you for sharing !!!"
  }
}