Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The authors apply transfer learning to model inclusive electron-nucleus cross sections by pretraining deep neural network ensembles on $^{12}\text{C}$ data and fine-tuning them across six target nuclei ranging from $^{3}\text{He}$ to $^{56}\text{Fe}$. This domain-adaptation approach directly addresses experimental data scarcity across disparate nuclear targets, outperforming standard phenomenological baselines like F1F2. Layer-wise analysis reveals that while similar nuclei like $^{16}\text{O}$ require only shallow fine-tuning, structurally distinct targets demand deeper adaptation to successfully extrapolate into kinematic domains unobserved in the source data.
Deep ensembles pretrained solely on carbon scattering data can extrapolate to unseen nuclear isotopes and unmeasured kinematic domains through target-dependent, layer-selective fine-tuning.
We apply transfer learning (TL) to construct data-driven models of inclusive electron-nucleus cross sections. Starting from an ensemble of deep neural networks pretrained on \(^{12}\)C data, we fine-tune the models separately for \(^{3}\)He, \(^{6}\)Li, \(^{16}\)O, \(^{27}\)Al, \(^{40}\)Ca, and \(^{56}\)Fe. The resulting models improve for all targets, marginally so for oxygen, where the carbon baseline is already adequate, although their predictive robustness depends on the amount, coverage, and precision of the available target data. We systematically study how model performance depends on the number of fine-tuned layers, on the fraction and selection of the training data, and on the overlap between the source and target kinematic domains. The layer-wise analysis shows that oxygen requires only shallow adaptation, whereas helium, calcium, and iron require substantially deeper fine-tuning. Lithium represents the least robust case because of its limited dataset, while aluminum demonstrates a strong sensitivity to a small subset of highly constraining measurements. For selected kinematic configurations outside the coverage of the carbon training data, the adapted models remain consistent with the measurements within their estimated uncertainties. Finally, we compare the resulting predictions with those of the phenomenological F1F2 model.