Optimal-Transport-Based Cell Resampling for Negative and Pathological Event Weights

Camille Mauceri; Jennifer Roloff; Julia Marrinan; Lauren Hay; Matt LeBlanc; Regan Doherty; Rishabh Jain

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 62 references

Optimal-Transport-Based Cell Resampling for Negative and Pathological Event Weights

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · glm-5.2

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Optimal transport beats Euclidean metrics for cleaning negative MC weights

desk verdict OT-based cell resampling is a solid practical advance, but the key comparison against the prior Euclidean metric has a structural bias in its favor that the authors don't address. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08723 v1 pith:ST2F2UUW submitted 2026-07-09 hep-ph physics.comp-phphysics.data-an

Regan Doherty , Lauren Hay , Rishabh Jain , Matt LeBlanc , Julia Marrinan , Camille Mauceri , Jennifer Roloff This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phphysics.comp-phphysics.data-an

keywords optimaltransportcellresamplingnegativeeventweightsEnergyMover'sDistanceMonteCarlogenerationinfraredcollinearsafetyCross-SectionNLOQCD

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

The paper claims that cell resampling algorithms — which locally redistribute negative and pathologically large event weights among nearby events in a metric space to make all weights positive — perform better when the notion of 'nearby' is defined by optimal-transport distances rather than by the Euclidean object-based metrics used in prior work. The specific metrics studied are the Energy Mover's Distance (EMD), which computes the minimum work needed to rearrange one event's radiation pattern into another's, and a spectral variant (sEMD) that operates on a one-dimensional energy-weighted angular representation. Because these metrics are infrared- and collinear-safe by construction, the resampling can be applied directly to particles at any stage of Monte Carlo event generation — after the hard-scattering matrix element, after the parton shower, or after hadronization — without first clustering particles into jets, which prior Euclidean approaches required and which introduced an unwanted dependence on jet algorithm parameters. Applied to next-to-leading-order Z+jets and top-antitop samples, the EMD with angular exponent β=1 applied to fully hadronized events yields the lowest bias across kinematic distributions and a holistic sample-level distance metric the authors call the Cross-Section Mover's Distance (ΣMD), outperforming the Euclidean metric particularly at high reweighting fractions.

What carries the argument

The EMD between two collider events is defined as the minimum transport cost to rearrange one event's energy flow into the other's, computed over the two-dimensional rapidity-azimuth plane with a ground metric of Euclidean angular distance, an angular exponent β controlling sensitivity to different angular scales, and a parameter R setting the relative importance of transport cost versus total-energy difference. Cell resampling uses this metric to define hyperspherical neighborhoods (cells) around negatively-weighted seed events; when the total weight in a cell is positive, weights are redistributed via the transformation w_i → (Σ w_j / Σ |w_j|) |w_i|, making all cell weights positive while保

What would settle it

If, when applied to million-event samples comparable to those used in actual LHC productions, the EMD-based cell resampling does not produce measurably lower bias than the Euclidean object-based metric (or if its computational cost makes it impractical at that scale), the central claim of superiority would not hold in the regime where it matters for experiments.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that optimal-transport-based distances — specifically the EMD with β=1 on hadronized events — provide an infrared-safe, jet-definition-independent metric for cell resampling that introduces less bias into kinematic distributions than the Euclidean object-based metric from prior literature, while also enabling reweighting at any stage of event generation. The authors further introduce the ΣMD, an unbinned optimal-transport distance between entire event samples, as a general-purpose figure of merit for quantifying reweighting bias that does not depend on choosing specific observables or binning.

Load-bearing premise

The performance advantage of the optimal-transport metrics over the Euclidean object-based metric is established on samples of only 100,000 events, whereas real LHC productions use millions. At larger sample sizes, the metric space becomes denser, cell radii shrink, and the Euclidean metric's superior computational scaling may erode or reverse the bias advantage demonstrated here. The authors themselves flag this concern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the EMD-based cell resampling scales to the millions-of-events samples used in real LHC productions, it could reduce the effective sample sizes needed for NLO simulations by factors of 6–16 (depending on the negative-weight fraction), directly alleviating the storage and computing bottleneck projected for the High-Luminosity LHC era.
The IRC-safety of the EMD means cell resampling can be applied as a post-hoc afterburner at any stage of the simulation pipeline without modifying the generator itself, making it compatible with existing production workflows.
The ΣMD provides a standardized, binning-independent benchmark that any group developing reweighting or sample-correction algorithms could adopt to report bias in a comparable way.
The constant-offset procedure for handling negative weights in optimal transport — adding a uniform shift to make all weights non-negative, exploiting the cancellation property of generalized Wasserstein distances — is a general technique applicable to any signed-measure optimal transport problem, not just cell resampling.
If the approach generalizes beyond Z+jets and tt̄ to more complex final states (e.g., multi-leg merged samples with higher negative-weight fractions), it could become a standard post-processing step in Monte Carlo production chains.

Reading between the lines

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

The comparison against the Euclidean metric was conducted on samples of 10^5 events, far smaller than the millions used in experimental productions. The authors acknowledge that the Euclidean metric's N log(N) scaling may give it a practical advantage at realistic sample sizes, so the demonstrated superiority of EMD may not hold in the regime where LHC experiments actually operate.
The O(N^3 log N) computational cost of exact EMD computation for high-multiplicity events (e.g., tt̄ after hadronization) could become a bottleneck when applied to millions of events, even though the bias reduction is demonstrated convincingly at the smaller scale studied.
The constant-offset trick for negative weights in the ΣMD works because cell resampling preserves event support (no events added or removed), but extending it to samples with genuinely different supports — as in generative model evaluation — would require ghost events or a different approach.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main thing to know: this paper replaces the Euclidean jet-based distance metric in cell resampling (Andersen et al.) with IRC-safe optimal transport metrics (EMD and sEMD), eliminating the need for intermediate jet clustering. That's a genuine practical improvement. The constant-offset trick for extending the ΣMD to signed measures is also a nice, clean methodological contribution — it's justified by the generalized Wasserstein cancellation property and requires no modification to standard OT solvers. The study across two processes (Z+jets and tt̄) and three generation stages is thorough, and the finding that hadronization-level reweighting performs best is well-supported by both kinematic distributions and the ΣMD. The β scan is useful and the choice of β=1 is well-motivated. Credit where it's due: this is careful, systematic work on a real computational problem for HL-LHC experiments. The IRC-safety argument for skipping jet clustering is the cleanest part of the paper and holds up completely. The stress-test concern about ΣMD circularity is the real soft spot, and it's more than minor. The ΣMD uses EMD as its ground metric (Eq. 4.2), so when the paper compares EMD-based reweighting against the Andersen et al. Euclidean metric using ΣMD (Figure 14), the deck is structurally stacked: EMD reweighting defines locality in the same space the ΣMD uses to measure distortion. The Andersen et al. metric defines locality differently, so its reweightings will naturally look more distorting in EMD space even if they're locally well-behaved in their own metric. The authors don't discuss this. The independent 1D kinematic comparisons (Figs. 12–13) partially compensate — at f_rw=0.75, EMD does show visibly better performance in H_T and N_jets — but at f_rw=0.25 differences are mostly within statistical uncertainties, and ΔR(j1,j2) and pT,j1/pT,j2 don't clearly favor EMD. So the comparative advantage claim rests more heavily on the ΣMD than it should. The sample-size concern (10^5 events vs. millions in real productions) is also legitimate. The authors acknowledge it themselves for the Andersen et al. metric, but it cuts both ways: the O(N^3) EMD scaling is a real practical barrier that's deferred to future work. The paper doesn't ship code or data, which limits verification. This is a solid paper that deserves a serious referee. The core methodological contribution — IRC-safe metrics for cell resampling without jet clustering — is sound and useful. The comparative claim against Andersen et al. needs either an independent figure of merit (not EMD-based) or an explicit discussion of the circularity concern. A referee should push hard on that point and on the scaling question. I'd lean toward accept if the authors add that discussion and soften the comparative claim accordingly.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript proposes using optimal-transport (OT) based metrics — the Energy Mover's Distance (EMD) and the Spectral Energy Mover's Distance (sEMD) — as distance measures for cell resampling algorithms that eliminate negative Monte Carlo event weights in NLO QCD samples. Because these metrics are IRC-safe by construction, the resampling can be applied directly to particle-level information without intermediate jet clustering, and at any stage of event generation (hard scatter, parton shower, or hadronization). The authors also introduce the Cross-Section Mover's Distance (ΣMD) as a holistic, unbinned figure of merit for quantifying reweighting bias. The approach is validated on Z+jets and tt̄ samples generated with MadGraph5_aMC@NLO + Pythia8, and the OT-based metrics are shown to reduce bias relative to the Euclidean object-based metric of Andersen et al. [13].

Significance. The problem addressed — negative and pathological weights in NLO+shower MC samples — is timely and practically important for the HL-LHC computing program. The key methodological contribution is the use of IRC-safe OT-based metrics that eliminate the jet-definition dependence of prior cell resampling approaches. The introduction of the ΣMD as an observable-independent, unbinned figure of merit is a useful and broadly applicable tool. The study of reweighting at different generation stages (HS, PS, HAD) is a genuine advantage of IRC-safe metrics and is explored systematically. The constant-offset procedure for handling negative weights in the ΣMD (Sec. 4.2.1) is a clean, well-justified practical contribution grounded in the generalized Wasserstein cancellation property. The paper provides falsifiable, quantitative comparisons across two distinct final-state topologies.

major comments (3)

Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.2) and Fig. 14: The ΣMD uses EMD as its ground metric (Θ_ij = EMD_{β,R}(E_i, E'_j)), which means the ΣMD measures sample-level distortion in the same metric space that the EMD-based reweighting uses to define event locality. This creates a structural preference for EMD-based reweighting over the Andersen et al. Euclidean metric: reweightings that are locally well-behaved in EMD space will naturally score better in the ΣMD, while reweightings that are locally well-behaved in a different metric space may appear more distorting. The authors do not discuss this potential circularity. The 1D kinematic comparisons (Figs. 12–13) are independent of this concern, but at f_rw = 0.25 the differences between all methods are mostly within statistical uncertainties, and at f_rw = 0.75 the EMD advantage is visible primarily in H_T and N_jets but not in ΔR(j1,j2) or pT,j1/pT,j2. The ΣMD
Sec. 3 and Sec. 5.3: All comparisons use samples of 10^5 events, far smaller than the millions of events used in experimental productions. The authors acknowledge that 'some aspects of [the Andersen et al. metric's] performance may be due to its application to a much sparser metric space' (Sec. 5.3). This caveat is important because the Euclidean metric of Ref. [13] was developed and validated on much larger samples. If the relative performance advantage of EMD diminishes at realistic sample sizes — where the Euclidean metric's N log(N) scaling gives it a practical computational edge — the central comparative claim would not hold in the regime where it matters most for LHC experiments. The authors should either (a) provide at least one comparison at a larger sample size to test whether the ranking is stable, or (b) more clearly scope the comparative claim to the sparse-sample regime and
Sec. 2.1: The EMD computation scales as O(N^3 log N) per event pair (or O(N^2) with approximate solvers), and the authors note that 'further improvements related to runtime efficiency have been left to future studies.' However, no timing benchmarks are provided, making it difficult to assess whether the method is practical for production-scale samples. A table of typical per-event-pair computation times for the Z+jets and tt̄ samples (which have different particle multiplicities) would substantially strengthen the paper's claim of practical applicability.

minor comments (6)

Sec. 2.1: The statement that R must be at least half of the maximum possible ground space distance when β > 1 is mentioned but the specific value R = 11.64 used throughout is only introduced later in the section. Consider stating the chosen R value when it is first needed.
Sec. 5.2, Fig. 8: The caption states the two events had H_T values of 187 GeV and 141 GeV, but the figure y-axis label reads 'max(H_T, H_T')' and '|H_T - H_T'|' without clear indication of which curve corresponds to which limit. Please clarify in the figure legend or caption.
Sec. 5.1, Fig. 3b: The x-axis is labeled 'Radius [GeV]' but the EMD ground metric is defined in the (η, φ) plane, which is dimensionless. Please clarify the units.
Sec. 4.1: The observable m_{b,l} is described as having a kinematic endpoint at √(m_t² - m_W²) ≈ 153 GeV, but this endpoint applies only to the specific decay topology where the b-jet and lepton come from the same top. In dileptonic tt̄ events, the endpoint differs. Please specify the decay channel or clarify.
Sec. 5.3: The sEMD is described as showing 'similar but consistently worse performance' than the EMD, but no explanation is offered for why this is the case. A brief discussion of whether the spectral representation's loss of geometric information (mentioned in Sec. 2.2) is responsible would strengthen the analysis.
The reference list includes Refs. [62, 63] which appear to be from 2025–2026; please verify these citations are complete and correctly attributed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

ΣMD evaluation metric shares its ground metric (EMD) with one of the methods being evaluated, creating structural affinity in the key comparative claim — but this is evaluation bias, not strict derivation circularity, and independent kinematic evidence partially corroborates.

self definitional [Eq. 4.2 and Figure 14 (Sec. 5.3)]
"The ground metric Θ_ij is an event-level EMD, Θ_ij = EMD_{β,R}(E_i, E'_j), (4.2) so that the cost of transporting cross section between two events is determined by how distant those events are in the ground space."

The ΣMD measures sample-level distortion using EMD as its ground metric (Eq. 4.2). The EMD-based cell resampling defines event 'nearby' using the same EMD. When EMD-based reweighting redistributes weights among nearby events in EMD space, the resulting cross-section transport measured by ΣMD will involve short-distance moves in EMD space, yielding a small ΣMD by construction of the locality criterion. The Andersen et al. reweighting defines locality in a different (Euclidean-jet) metric space; its weight redistributions may be locally well-behaved in that space but appear as long-distance transport in EMD space, inflating the ΣMD. Thus the ΣMD comparison in Figure 14 — the paper's clearest evidence that 'OT-based metrics reduce the observed bias relative to other cell resampling techniques

full rationale

The structural affinity between the ΣMD's ground metric (EMD) and the EMD-based reweighting method is a genuine methodological concern: the evaluation metric is defined using the same distance as one evaluated method, which could systematically favor that method in the comparison. However, this does not constitute strict circularity in the derivation-chain sense. The ΣMD is not trivially zero for EMD-reweighted samples — the reweighting changes event weights, not event positions, so the ΣMD remains a nontrivial measurement. The result is not 'equivalent to its inputs by construction.' Furthermore, the EMD and ΣMD are drawn from external literature (Komiske, Metodiev, Thaler; Refs. [23, 27]) — not self-citations by the present authors. The paper also provides independent evidence through 1D kinematic distributions (Figs. 12–13), which do not depend on the EMD metric. At f_rw=0.75, these show EMD advantages in H_T and N_jets, though not in ΔR(j1,j2) or pT,j1/pT,j2, and at f_rw=0.25 differences are mostly within statistical uncertainties. The paper acknowledges that 'all figures of merit should be considered together' (Sec. 4.2) but does not discuss the specific metric-affinity concern. This is a real evaluation-bias risk worth flagging, but it falls short of the strict circularity patterns (fitted input renamed as prediction, self-citation chain forcing the result, or result = input by definition) that would warrant a score of 6+.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities, particles, or forces. The EMD, sEMD, and ΣMD are mathematical constructions from prior literature. The free parameters (β, R, γ, S, τ) are hyperparameters of the distance metrics, chosen by domain reasoning or performance scanning rather than fitted to physical data. The constant-offset procedure for negative weights is a new algorithmic technique but not a new entity.

free parameters (5)

β (angular exponent) = 1
Studied at values 0, 0.5, 1, 2, ∞; β=1 selected as optimal trade-off of accuracy and computational efficiency (Sec. 5.2). Not fitted to data per se, but chosen by scanning performance.
R (EMD distance scale) = 11.64
Set to the maximum possible ground space distance given the ATLAS/CMS pseudorapidity acceptance (Sec. 2.1). Not a fitted parameter but a domain-specific choice.
τ (Euclidean metric pT weighting) = 0
Left at default value of 0 for the Andersen et al. metric comparison (Sec. 1.1).
γ (ΣMD angular exponent) = 1
Set to 1 for the ΣMD computation (Sec. 4.2).
S (ΣMD distance scale) = max distance in EMD matrix
Set to normalize ΣMD values to [0,1] range (Sec. 4.2).

assumptions (4)

standard math The EMD and sEMD are IRC-safe metrics on the space of collider events.
Established in Refs. [23–25]; invoked throughout Sec. 2 and used as the foundational justification for applying these metrics directly to particles without jet clustering.
domain assumption Cell resampling with sufficiently small cell radius R introduces undetectable bias on physical observables.
Stated in Sec. 1.1: 'When R becomes smaller than what is experimentally resolvable, the effect of this reweighting on physical observables becomes undetectable.' This is the core assumption enabling the entire approach.
standard math The generalized Wasserstein distance satisfies W(μ+η, ν+η) = W(μ,ν), justifying the constant-offset procedure for negative weights.
Invoked in Sec. 4.2.1, proven in Refs. [55, 56]. Used to handle negative weights in the ΣMD computation.
domain assumption The MC@NLO matching procedure produces a stable fraction of negative weights that can be locally redistributed without biasing the inclusive cross section.
Implicit in the entire approach; the cell resampling preserves total cell weight (Eq. 1.1) but assumes local phase-space density is sufficient for small-R reweighting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optimal-Transport-Based Cell Resampling for Negative and Pathological Event Weights." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ST2F2UUW

@misc{pith2026260708723,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optimal-Transport-Based Cell Resampling for Negative and Pathological Event Weights},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ST2F2UUW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08723}
}

read the original abstract

Negative and pathologically large Monte Carlo event weights strain the computing budgets of experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. Cell resampling algorithms locally redistribute event weights among nearby events in a metric space. We study the performance of metrics defined in terms of Optimal Transport, namely the Energy Mover's Distance and a spectral variant, in the context of such algorithms. As these metrics are insensitive to the addition of soft and collinear radiation, they may be applied directly to particles at any stage of event generation. When applied to samples simulated at next-to-leading-order in quantum chromodynamics, this approach reduces the observed bias relative to other cell resampling techniques presented in the literature. We also study the Cross-Section Mover's Distance as an unbinned, broadly-applicable figure of merit for quantifying the bias introduced by any full-phase-space reweighting.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[13]

Unbiased Elimination of Negative Weights in Monte Carlo Samples

J.R. Andersen and A. Maier,Unbiased elimination of negative weights in Monte Carlo samples,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 433 [2109.07851]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[1]

Evans and P

L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine,JINST3(2008) S08001

work page 2008
[2]

Aberle, I

O. Aberle, I. B´ ejar Alonso, O. Br¨ uning, P. Fessia, L. Rossi, L. Tavian et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, CERN, Geneva (2020), 10.23731/CYRM-2020-0010

work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2020-0010 2020
[3]

ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Software and Computing HL-LHC Roadmap, Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2022-005, CERN, Geneva (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

CMS Offline Software and Computing,CMS Phase-2 Computing Model: Update Document, Tech. Rep. CERN-CMS-NOTE-2022-008, CERN, Geneva (2022)

work page 2022
[5]

ATLAS Collaboration,Modelling and computational improvements to the simulation of single vector-boson plus jet processes for the ATLAS experiment,JHEP08(2022) 089 [2112.09588]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[6]

A General Algorithm for Calculating Jet Cross Sections in NLO QCD

S. Catani and M.H. Seymour,A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,Nucl. Phys. B485(1997) 291 [hep-ph/9605323]. – 28 –

work page Pith review arXiv 1997
[7]

Three-jet cross sections to next-to-leading order

S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt and A. Signer,Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order,Nucl. Phys. B467(1996) 399 [hep-ph/9512328]

work page Pith review arXiv 1996

Show all 62 references

[8]

Frixione and B.R

S. Frixione and B.R. Webber,Matching NLO QCD computations and parton shower simulations,JHEP06(2002) 029 [hep-ph/0204244]

2002 arXiv
[9]

Frederix and S

R. Frederix and S. Frixione,Merging meets matching in MC@NLO,JHEP12(2012) 061 [1209.6215]

2012 arXiv
[10]

L¨ onnblad,Correcting the Colour-Dipole Cascade Model with Fixed Order Matrix Elements,JHEP05(2002) 046 [hep-ph/0112284]

L. L¨ onnblad,Correcting the Colour-Dipole Cascade Model with Fixed Order Matrix Elements,JHEP05(2002) 046 [hep-ph/0112284]

2002 arXiv
[11]

Lavesson and L

N. Lavesson and L. Lonnblad,W+jets matrix elements and the dipole cascade,JHEP07 (2005) 054 [hep-ph/0503293]

2005 arXiv
[12]

L¨ onnblad and S

L. L¨ onnblad and S. Prestel,Matching tree-level matrix elements with interleaved showers, JHEP03(2012) 019 [1109.4829]

2012 arXiv
[14]

Andersen, A

J.R. Andersen, A. Maier and D. Maˆ ıtre,Efficient negative-weight elimination in large high-multiplicity Monte Carlo event samples,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 835 [2303.15246]

2023 arXiv
[15]

Andersen, E

J.R. Andersen, E. Cole and A. Maier,Precision Cell Resampling with a Relative and Resonant Aware Metric,2605.13237

arXiv
[16]

Pele and B

O. Pele and B. Taskar,The tangent earth mover’s distance, inGeometric Science of Information, F. Nielsen and F. Barbaresco, eds., (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 397–404, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40020-9 43

2013 doi
[17]

Peleg, M

S. Peleg, M. Werman and H. Rom,A unified approach to the change of resolution: space and gray-level,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence11(1989) 739

1989
[18]

Rubner, C

Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi and L.J. Guibas,A metric for distributions with applications to image databases, inProceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV ’98, (Washington, DC, USA), pp. 59–, IEEE Computer Society, 1998, https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.1998.710701

1998 doi
[19]

Rubner, C

Y. Rubner, C. Tomasi and L.J. Guibas,The earth mover’s distance as a metric for image retrieval,International Journal of Computer Vision40(2000) 99

2000
[20]

Pele and M

O. Pele and M. Werman,A linear time histogram metric for improved sift matching, in Computer Vision – ECCV 2008, D. Forsyth, P. Torr and A. Zisserman, eds., (Berlin, Heidelberg), pp. 495–508, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2008, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-88690-7 37

2008 doi
[21]

Wasserstein,Markov processes over denumerable products of spaces describing large systems of automata,Problems of Information Transmission5(1969) 47

L.N. Wasserstein,Markov processes over denumerable products of spaces describing large systems of automata,Problems of Information Transmission5(1969) 47

1969
[22]

Dobrushin,Prescribing a system of random variables by conditional distributions, Theory of Probability & Its Applications15(1970) 458

R.L. Dobrushin,Prescribing a system of random variables by conditional distributions, Theory of Probability & Its Applications15(1970) 458

1970
[23]

Komiske, E.M

P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev and J. Thaler,Metric Space of Collider Events,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 041801 [1902.02346]

2019 arXiv
[24]

Larkoski and J

A.J. Larkoski and J. Thaler,A spectral metric for collider geometry,JHEP08(2023) 107 [2305.03751]. – 29 –

2023 arXiv
[25]

Gambhir, A.J

R. Gambhir, A.J. Larkoski and J. Thaler,SPECTER: efficient evaluation of the spectral EMD,JHEP12(2025) 219 [2410.05379]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Flamary and N

R. Flamary and N. Courty,POT python optimal transport library, 2017

2017
[27]

Komiske, E.M

P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev and J. Thaler,The Hidden Geometry of Particle Collisions, JHEP07(2020) 006 [2004.04159]

2020 arXiv
[28]

Torgerson,Multidimensional scaling: I

W.S. Torgerson,Multidimensional scaling: I. theory and method,Psychometrika17(1952) 401–419

1952
[29]

Andersen, A

J.R. Andersen, A. Cueto, S.P. Jones and A. Maier,A Cell Resampler study of Negative Weights in Multi-jet Merged Samples,2411.11651

arXiv
[30]

Salam,Towards Jetography,Eur

G.P. Salam,Towards Jetography,Eur. Phys. J. C67(2010) 637 [0906.1833]

2010 arXiv
[31]

ATLAS Collaboration,Measurements of multijet event isotropies using optimal transport with the ATLAS detector,JHEP10(2023) 060 [2305.16930]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Cesarotti and M

C. Cesarotti and M. LeBlanc,A field guide to event-shape observables using optimal transport,JHEP25(2020) 014 [2409.13150]

2020
[33]

Kogler et al.,Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: Experimental Review,Rev

R. Kogler et al.,Jet Substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: Experimental Review,Rev. Mod. Phys.91(2019) 045003 [1803.06991]

2019 arXiv
[34]

van Beekveld, E

M. van Beekveld, E. Bothmann, A. Buckley, C. G¨ utschow, P. Skands and R. Winterhalder, The Monte Carlo Ecosystem in High-Energy Physics: A Primer,2605.16036

arXiv
[35]

Alwall, R

J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al.,The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations,JHEP07(2014) 079 [1405.0301]

2014 arXiv
[36]

Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data,Nucl

NNPDF Collaboration, R.D. Ball et al.,Parton distributions with LHC data,Nucl. Phys. B 867(2013) 244 [1207.1303]

2013 arXiv
[37]

Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys

C. Bierlich et al.,A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3,SciPost Phys. Codeb.2022(2022) 8 [2203.11601]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Skands, S

P. Skands, S. Carrazza and J. Rojo,Tuning PYTHIA 8.1: the Monash 2013 Tune,Eur. Phys. J. C74(2014) 3024 [1404.5630]

2013 arXiv
[39]

Andersson, G

B. Andersson, G. Gustafson, G. Ingelman and T. Sj¨ ostrand,Parton fragmentation and string dynamics,Phys. Rept.97(1983) 31

1983
[40]

Sj¨ ostrand,Jet fragmentation of multiparton configurations in a string framework,Nucl

T. Sj¨ ostrand,Jet fragmentation of multiparton configurations in a string framework,Nucl. Phys. B248(1984) 469

1984
[41]

Frederix, S

R. Frederix, S. Frixione, S. Prestel and P. Torrielli,On the reduction of negative weights in MC@NLO-type matching procedures,JHEP07(2020) 238 [2002.12716]

2020 arXiv
[42]

Catani, Y.L

S. Catani, Y.L. Dokshitzer, M.H. Seymour and B.R. Webber,Longitudinally invariantK t clustering algorithms for hadron hadron collisions,Nucl. Phys. B406(1993) 187

1993
[43]

Cacciari, G.P

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-k t jet clustering algorithm,JHEP04(2008) 063 [0802.1189]

2008 arXiv
[44]

Cacciari, G.P

M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual,Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896 [1111.6097]. – 30 –

2012 arXiv
[45]

CMS Collaboration,Measurement of the top quark mass in the dileptonict ¯tdecay channel using the mass observablesM bℓ,M T2 , andM bℓν in pp collisions at √s= 8TeV,Phys. Rev. D96(2017) 032002 [1704.06142]. [46]ATLAScollaboration,Measurement of the top quark mass in thet ¯t→dile...

2017 arXiv
[46]

M¨ uller,Integral probability metrics and their generating classes of functions,Advances in Applied Probability29(1997) 429–443

A. M¨ uller,Integral probability metrics and their generating classes of functions,Advances in Applied Probability29(1997) 429–443

1997
[47]

Kullback and R.A

S. Kullback and R.A. Leibler,On Information and Sufficiency,The Annals of Mathematical Statistics22(1951) 79

1951
[48]

Lin,Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy,IEEE Transactions on Information Theory37(1991) 145

J. Lin,Divergence measures based on the shannon entropy,IEEE Transactions on Information Theory37(1991) 145

1991
[49]

Wong and M

A.K.C. Wong and M. You,Entropy and distance of random graphs with application to structural pattern recognition,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligencePAMI-7(1985) 599

1985
[50]

Pearson,X

K. Pearson,X. on the criterion that a given system of deviations from the probable in the case of a correlated system of variables is such that it can be reasonably supposed to have arisen from random sampling,The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journa...

1900
[51]

Krause and D

C. Krause and D. Shih,Fast and accurate simulations of calorimeter showers with normalizing flows,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 113003 [2106.05285]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Drnevich, S

M. Drnevich, S. Jiggins, J. Katzy and K. Cranmer,Neural quasiprobabilistic likelihood ratio estimation with negatively weighted data,Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.6(2025) 045023 [2410.10216]

2025 arXiv
[53]

Kansal, A

R. Kansal, A. Li, J. Duarte, N. Chernyavskaya, M. Pierini, B. Orzari et al.,Evaluating generative models in high energy physics,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 076017 [2211.10295]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Piccoli, F

B. Piccoli, F. Rossi and M. Tournus,A Wasserstein norm for signed measures, with application to nonlocal transport equation with source term,1910.05105

1910 arXiv
[55]

Piccoli and F

B. Piccoli and F. Rossi,On properties of the generalized Wasserstein distance,Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis222(2016) 1339 [1304.7014]

2016 arXiv
[56]

Drnevich, S

M. Drnevich, S. Jiggins and K. Cranmer,Quasiprobabilistic Density Ratio Estimation with a Reverse Engineered Classification Loss Function,2512.19913
[57]

Richards,A flexible growth function for empirical use,Journal of Experimental Botany 10(1959) 290

F.J. Richards,A flexible growth function for empirical use,Journal of Experimental Botany 10(1959) 290

1959
[58]

Wiegand,Kish, l.: Survey sampling

H. Wiegand,Kish, l.: Survey sampling. john wiley & sons, inc., new york, london 1965, ix + 643 s., 31 abb., 56 tab., preis 83 s.,Biometrische Zeitschrift10(1968) 88

1965
[59]

Farkh, R

S.E. Farkh, R. Frederix and M. Gouighri,MC@NLO event generation by reweighting unweighted Born events,2602.18124
[60]

Danziger, S

K. Danziger, S. H¨ oche and F. Siegert,Reducing negative weights in Monte Carlo event generation with Sherpa,2110.15211

arXiv
[61]

Nachman and D

B. Nachman and D. Noll,Neural refinement of sample weights,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 096009 [2505.03724]. – 31 –

2025 arXiv
[62]

Palmer and B

C. Palmer and B. Kronheim,Improving statistical precision in Monte Carlo samples with negative weights via reweighting and uncertainty quantification,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 012003 [2510.16217]. – 32 –

2026

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [13]

Unbiased Elimination of Negative Weights in Monte Carlo Samples

J.R. Andersen and A. Maier,Unbiased elimination of negative weights in Monte Carlo samples,Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 433 [2109.07851]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[2] [1]

Evans and P

L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine,JINST3(2008) S08001

work page 2008

[3] [2]

Aberle, I

O. Aberle, I. B´ ejar Alonso, O. Br¨ uning, P. Fessia, L. Rossi, L. Tavian et al.,High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report, CERN Yellow Reports: Monographs, CERN, Geneva (2020), 10.23731/CYRM-2020-0010

work page doi:10.23731/cyrm-2020-0010 2020

[4] [3]

ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS Software and Computing HL-LHC Roadmap, Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2022-005, CERN, Geneva (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [4]

CMS Offline Software and Computing,CMS Phase-2 Computing Model: Update Document, Tech. Rep. CERN-CMS-NOTE-2022-008, CERN, Geneva (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [5]

ATLAS Collaboration,Modelling and computational improvements to the simulation of single vector-boson plus jet processes for the ATLAS experiment,JHEP08(2022) 089 [2112.09588]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[7] [6]

A General Algorithm for Calculating Jet Cross Sections in NLO QCD

S. Catani and M.H. Seymour,A General algorithm for calculating jet cross-sections in NLO QCD,Nucl. Phys. B485(1997) 291 [hep-ph/9605323]. – 28 –

work page Pith review arXiv 1997

[8] [7]

Three-jet cross sections to next-to-leading order

S. Frixione, Z. Kunszt and A. Signer,Three jet cross-sections to next-to-leading order,Nucl. Phys. B467(1996) 399 [hep-ph/9512328]

work page Pith review arXiv 1996