HoldingPen: good records automatically rejected

[ksachs]

2 examples where no keyword (CORE or non-CORE) was extracted on labs, there is no decision from the guesser and good records are rejected automatically.
Esp. the first record is a clear case. Something went really wrong in the workflow.

https://labs.inspirehep.net/holdingpen/675064
Neutrino Mass Sum-rule and Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay
should have 6 CORE KWs
CP, violation; (0neutrino); neutrino; electroweak interaction; neutrino, mass; Gran Sasso; double-beta decay

https://labs.inspirehep.net/holdingpen/675482
The isolated, uniformly moving electron
should have 3 CORE KWs
Yang-Mills-Higgs theory; Yang-Mills; magnetic monopole; caloron

@fschwenn

[ksachs]

another example:
https://labs.inspirehep.net/holdingpen/694229
Lensing Bias to CMB Polarization Measurements of Compensated Isocurvature Perturbations
should have 5 CORE KWs
dark matter; curvaton; neutrino; baryon number; inflaton

[jacquerie]

should have 3 CORE KWs

Sorry @ksachs, but how are you determining that? In particular, are we using the same ontologies/knowledge bases? Because I see that #2282 has not yet been merged...

[ksachs]

when searching for another bug (BibClassify used only title/abstract instead of the fulltext) we were comparing keywords. Yes we are using the same ontology and BibClassify parameters. And if there are keywords on labs they are identical to what we have at DESY. At least as far as I noticed - I don't compare every single KW and I can't systematically search the holdingpen since there is no API I am capable of using. #2282 is an update of the taxonomy with some additional KW that are not relevant for this issue.

[ksachs]

2 new examples:
https://labs.inspirehep.net/holdingpen/756285
https://labs.inspirehep.net/holdingpen/756286

[ksachs]

https://labs.inspirehep.net/holdingpen/760574

[ksachs]

https://labs.inspirehep.net/api/holdingpen/762556
"doc": "Mark the workflow object with already-ingested:True.",

Why? arXiv:1710.09270 is not in INSPIRE and 762556 is the only record in the holdingpen.

same for arXiv:1710.09271
https://labs.inspirehep.net/holdingpen/762556

[david-caro]

Just about that last message (762556) (checking one by one):

They were rejected because they are too old (more than 5 days):

(Submitted on 20 Oct 2017)

and thus considered updates, and discarded as we yet don't support updates on labs.

The actual function that checks that is:

    "doc": "IF: args(<function previously_rejected at 0x7dfbd70>, [<function mark at 0x7dfbe60>, <function mark at 0x7dfbf50>]); kwargs().",

I know the names are awful, just bear with me for now, we are working on that.

[ksachs]

Thanks David.
I thought this time cut-off was disabled. We discussed it last week with Sam.
Is it a lot of work to take that out or increase the time window?