Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 12 cited by

Inserting a neural-network surrogate into the leading-color-to-full-color reweighting chain speeds up QCD event generation by up to a factor of two while keeping full-color accuracy.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 22:50 UTC pith:RR4EJL7G

load-bearing objection Solid, exact-by-construction surrogate acceleration of LC-to-FC event generation, but the factor-two speed-up is likely inflated by an asymmetric baseline comparison. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.07068 v2 pith:RR4EJL7G submitted 2025-09-08 hep-ph

FASTColor -- Full-color Amplitude Surrogate Toolkit for QCD

Javier Mari\~no Villadamigo , Rikkert Frederix , Tilman Plehn , Timea Vitos , Ramon Winterhalder This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords leading-color approximationfull-color reweightingmatrix-element surrogatesunweightingLHC event generationLorentz-equivariant transformergrokkingQCD multi-jet
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that a neural network can stand in for the expensive full-color matrix element during the leading-color-to-full-color reweighting stage of LHC event generation, without changing the final accuracy. It inserts a surrogate acceptance step before the exact full-color reweighting, so the exact computation still decides which events survive; the surrogate only rejects events early. For representative gluon and quark-line processes up to seven final-state particles, the paper reports effective speed-ups of about 15 percent to more than a factor of two over the standard LC-to-FC workflow. It also shows that a plain transformer displays a sudden, grokking-like loss collapse and that the collapse coincides with the network learning Lorentz symmetries. A final section argues that once surrogate uncertainties are calibrated, the exact reweighting step could be dropped entirely, with potential gains close to an order of magnitude.

Core claim

The central claim is that a three-step unweighting chain -- leading-color event generation, a learned surrogate acceptance step, and an exact full-color reweighting step -- accelerates multi-jet LHC event generation while fully retaining FC accuracy. The surrogate regresses the LC-to-FC ratio r = |M|^2/|M_LC|^2; events passing the surrogate threshold face the exact ratio, with acceptance controlled by t = r/r_surr. Because the final step still evaluates the exact full-color matrix element, the accepted sample matches the baseline LC-to-FC sample up to a controlled overweight fraction, quantified by the effective sample size alpha >= 0.995. Across networks and processes the average effective

What carries the argument

The reweighting ratio r_LC->FC(x,h) = |M(x,h)|^2/|M_LC(x,h)|^2 is the object being learned. The carrying mechanism is the three-step unweighting algorithm: after LC unweighting, a network evaluation of this ratio performs a cheap rejection step; only survivors reach the exact FC evaluation, followed by an unweighting against t = r/r_surr. Percentile-based maxima for r_surr and t boost efficiencies while keeping alpha >= 0.995, and the effective gain factor f_eff ties the speed-up to these efficiencies and to the average evaluation times of LC amplitudes, FC amplitudes, and the surrogate.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted speed-ups are measured from finite test samples and from a percentile scan that is tuned to maximise the gain; if the test sample misses the rare large-weight tails or the scan overfits, the gains may not hold for a fresh production run.

What would settle it

Fix the percentile maxima for the surrogate and the ratio thresholds on a training sample, then run the three-step pipeline on an independent production-size sample and compare wall-clock time and the effective sample size fraction alpha to the LC baseline; an effective gain at or below one, or alpha below 0.995, would falsify the claimed speed-up at retained accuracy.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The LC-to-FC baseline gains up to a factor of two for high-multiplicity channels, so precision multi-jet samples for the HL-LHC become cheaper to produce at the same nominal accuracy.
  • The MLP, despite lower regression accuracy, reaches comparable gains because it is fast, showing that surrogate evaluation time matters as much as regression quality.
  • Lorentz-equivariant architectures scale better with multiplicity, so the speed-up should grow as FC amplitudes become more expensive.
  • If surrogate uncertainties become calibrated, the final exact reweighting step can be dropped, with effective gains close to an order of magnitude for high multiplicities.
  • The transformer's loss collapse resembles grokking and aligns its representation with Lorentz invariance, suggesting training dynamics can be tuned to reach the accurate regime faster.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported gains are timing- and efficiency-based; in a full production generator the speed-up depends on the fraction of events that survive the first LC step, so processes with low LC unweighting efficiency would see a smaller absolute benefit.
  • The same surrogate-with-final-exact-step pattern should transfer to other expensive reweighting ratios, such as NLO corrections or matching/merging weights, whenever the ratio is smooth enough to regress.
  • A direct way to extend the result is to test the percentile-maximum scan on a held-out production sample with the maxima fixed in advance; a drop in alpha below 0.995 would indicate overfitting of the scan to the test set.
  • The loss-collapse observation suggests that transformer-based surrogates may need longer training than the other architectures to reach their accurate regime, which matters for practical deployment and fair comparison.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FASTColor, a three-step unweighting pipeline for QCD event generation that inserts a trained ML surrogate for the LC→FC reweighting ratio between the leading-color generation step and the final full-color reweighting. After the first LC unweighting, a surrogate r_surr is used in a second acceptance step; events passing it are then reweighted against t = r/r_surr in a final exact step, with percentile-based maxima and overweight corrections to preserve statistical power. The authors compare MLP, GNN, transformer, and L-GATr architectures for gg→ng, single-quark-line, and double-quark-line processes, and report effective speed-ups of up to a factor of two over the two-step LC-to-FC baseline while retaining full-color accuracy. A separate section studies the transformer's loss-collapse dynamics and argues that the network learns Lorentz symmetries.

Significance. If the reported gains are robust, the method is a practical and conceptually clean acceleration of full-color event generation: the final reweighting step makes the physical result exact by construction, and the timing model in Eqs. (14)–(18) is a reasonable and useful framework. The architecture comparison, including Lorentz-equivariant networks, is a useful contribution. The main value lies in the speed-up claim, and that claim depends on a fair comparison with the baseline and on the statistical treatment of the efficiency measurements. The symmetry-learning study is interesting but not load-bearing for the central result.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (15), Eq. (18), Alg. 1] The baseline comparison is asymmetric. The surrogate chain in Sec. 2.2 scans p_surr and p_t over p∈{0.4,...,1.00} and selects the pair maximizing f_eff subject to α≥0.995, using Eq. (19). The baseline in Alg. 1 and Eq. (15) uses strict r_max, with no analogous percentile scan and no α correction. Applying the same percentile-based r_max to the baseline with α≥0.995 would increase ε_r and lower T_LC, thereby reducing the quoted f_eff in Eq. (18). Since the abstract's 'around a factor two' speed-up is relative to this untuned baseline, the headline claim may be inflated. Please either re-optimize the baseline with the same percentile procedure and report the resulting f_eff, or explain clearly why the percentile optimization cannot be applied to the baseline.
  2. [Sec. 4.1, Sec. 2.2] The reported f_eff values are maxima over the p-scan performed on the test set, and the quoted uncertainties cover timing variations only. The efficiencies ε_LC, ε_r, ε_surr, ε_t are estimated from finite test samples, and selecting the best p values on the same data is a form of tuning. Without statistical uncertainties on the efficiencies, or a validation/test split in which p is fixed on a validation set and f_eff is evaluated on a held-out set, the quoted speed-ups may not generalize to production runs. Please provide bootstrap intervals or an explicit validation/test procedure for the p-selection, and state the resulting uncertainty on f_eff.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (18)] The formula for f_eff is typeset without parentheses and is hard to read. Please display numerator and denominator clearly, e.g., as a single fraction with explicit brackets.
  2. [Eq. (19)] The definition of w_p^max is undefined for p=1.00, since the set over which the minimum is taken is empty. Please restate the percentile-maximum definition using a standard weighted-percentile formulation that includes p=1 as the strict maximum.
  3. [Alg. 2] The return statement is ambiguous: 'return x and ew=max(...) ... |M_i_LC(x)|^2' mixes the event weight with the LC matrix element. Define ew separately and state the final event weight explicitly.
  4. [Sec. 4.1] L-GATr is evaluated only once, so its timing uncertainty is not estimated, while the other surrogates report a standard deviation over five runs. Please state this asymmetry in the caption or provide repeated timing measurements.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor language issues, e.g., 'the that' in Sec. 4.2 and 'an average speed-up' in the same section. A light editing pass would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the derived FC-accurate sample is exact by construction and the speed-up is a measured quantity, not a consequence of the surrogate being defined in terms of the result.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the three-step unweighting algorithm (Alg. 2) in which a surrogate r_surr is used only as a proposal distribution for an intermediate acceptance step, and the final step unweights against t = r/r_surr with an exact FC matrix element. This final step ensures that the returned events are full-color accurate regardless of surrogate errors; hence the physical result is not defined in terms of the surrogate. The effective gain factor f_eff (Eq. 18) is an empirical ratio of measured execution times and unweighting efficiencies, not a first-principles prediction that reduces to the surrogate's fit. The paper does not rely on a load-bearing self-citation: the LC-to-FC baseline [28] is cited only as the established method to be accelerated, and the gain-factor definition [84] is an external reference. The percentile scan for r_surr,max and t_max is a performance optimization on the test set, which may raise concerns about overfitting or unfair baseline comparison, but it does not make the derivation circular: f_eff is not defined as the maximum over p, and the exactness of the final sample is independent of that choice. The paper explicitly states that quoted uncertainties cover only timing variations, a limitation but not a circular step. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard QCD color decomposition and the LC-to-FC identity (Eq. 8), on the use of Kish effective sample size to control overweights, and on the assumption that the finite test sets faithfully represent the weight distributions. The percentile maxima p_surr and p_t are free parameters, fitted to maximize the reported gain factor.

free parameters (2)
  • p_surr, percentile maximum for surrogate reweighting factor = varies per process/network, chosen from p in {0.4, 0.425, ..., 1.0}
    Scanned and selected to maximize the effective gain factor f_eff while keeping the Kish effective sample size fraction alpha >= 0.995 (Sec. 2.2).
  • p_t, percentile maximum for t = r/r_surr = varies per process/network, chosen from the same scan
    Same scan as p_surr, maximizing f_eff (Sec. 2.2).
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The leading-color approximation and the LC-to-FC reweighting identity (Eq. 8) correctly factorize the full-color cross section.
    Standard QCD color decomposition with the color matrix diagonal approximation. Used throughout Sec. 2.1.
  • standard math Kish effective sample size correctly captures the statistical power loss from overweights (Eq. 16).
    Standard sampling theory, used to define the alpha constraint in the percentile scan.
  • domain assumption The 300k-event test set adequately samples the tails of the r_LC->FC and t distributions, so that measured unweighting efficiencies are reliable.
    The unweighting efficiencies and thus f_eff depend on the weight distributions; if tails are undersampled, gains are overestimated. No error bars are given for these efficiencies.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23255 in / 10181 out tokens · 91687 ms · 2026-08-04T22:50:00.334758+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FASTColor -- Full-color Amplitude Surrogate Toolkit for QCD." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RR4EJL7G

@misc{pith2026250907068,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FASTColor -- Full-color Amplitude Surrogate Toolkit for QCD},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RR4EJL7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.07068}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

High-multiplicity events remain a bottleneck for LHC simulations due to their computational cost. We present a ML-surrogate approach to accelerate matrix element reweighting from leading-color (LC) to full-color (FC) accuracy, building on recent advancements in LC event generation. Comparing a variety of modern network architectures for representative QCD processes, we achieve speed-up of around a factor two over the current LC-to-FC baseline. We also show how transformers learn and exploit underlying symmetries, to improve generalization. Given the gained trust in trained networks and developments in learned uncertainties, the LC-to-FC approach will eventually benefit further from not needing a final classic unweighting step.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.07068 by Javier Mari\~no Villadamigo, Ramon Winterhalder, Rikkert Frederix, Tilman Plehn, Timea Vitos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Loss collapse for the transformer trained on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Losses Med(MSE0 ) (solid, green line) and Med(MSEg ) (dashed lines) dur￾ing training, for two example runs and our set of symmetry transformations g. On top right and bottom left, we clearly see that up to approximately 30k iterations the network achieves modest accuracy and struggles with phase space regions with the largest targets. After 5k additional iterations, the network has undergone a drop in loss… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Pearson correlation coefficients between Med [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Top: relative accuracy ∆r (left) and t = r/rsurr (right), used in the calcu￾lation of the second surrogate efficiency (right) for all networks and the g g → 4g process. Bottom: regression targets and predictions of the MLP and GNN (left) and transformer and L-GATr (right) for g g → 4g. evaluating a surrogate instead. The MLP has an effective gain factor comparable or even better than the other networks, ev… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Top: relative accuracy ∆r (left) and t = r/rsurr (right), used in the calcu￾lation of the second surrogate efficiency (right) for all networks and the g g → 7g process. Bottom: regression targets and predictions of the MLP and GNN (left) and transformer and L-GATr (right) for g g → 7g. dd¯ → uu¯+ (n−2)g in the center panels, and g g → ddu¯ u¯+ (n−4)g in the bottom panels, each for two representative color … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Gain factors for our surrogate approach described in Alg. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Spread of t = r/rsurr for L-GATr (left), and effective gain factors from our surrogate method described in Alg. 2 for all tested networks (right). Results are shown for the single quark-line processes: g g → dd¯ + (n − 2)g and dd¯ → ng (top), and the two double quark-line processes: dd¯ → uu¯ + (n − 2)g (middle) and g g → ddu¯ u¯ + (n − 4)g (bottom). tive gain factors for CO1. For CO2, on the other hand, t… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Pure surrogate unweighting effective gain factor (left) and relative gain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Regression results for g g → ng for the four networks considered and n ∈ {5, 6}. We show, on the left column, the distributions of true and network predic￾tions, and the ratio r/rsurr distribution on the right column. We skip here the n = 4 and n = 7 processes, already shown in the main text in Figs. 4, and 5, respectively. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Dependence of the effective gain factors on the amplitudes evaluation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Regression results for g g → dd¯ + (n − 2)g for the four networks consid￾ered and n ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}. We show, on the left column, the distributions of true and network predictions, and the ratio r/rsurr distribution on the right column. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Regression results for dd¯ → ng for the four networks considered and n ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}. We show, on the left column, the distributions of true and network predictions, and the ratio r/rsurr distribution on the right column. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Regression results for dd¯ → uu¯ + (n − 2)g (CO1) for the four networks considered and n ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}. We show, on the left column, the distributions of true and network predictions, and the ratio r/rsurr distribution on the right column. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Regression results for dd¯ → uu¯ + (n − 2)g (CO2) for the four networks considered and n ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}. We show, on the left column, the distributions of true and network predictions, and the ratio r/rsurr distribution on the right column. 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Regression results for g g → ddu¯ u¯+ (n−4)g (CO1) for the four networks considered and n ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}. We show, on the left column, the distributions of true and network predictions, and the ratio r/rsurr distribution on the right column. 24 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Regression results for g g → ddu¯ u¯+ (n−4)g (CO2) for the four networks considered and n ∈ {4, 5, 6, 7}. We show, on the left column, the distributions of true and network predictions, and the ratio r/rsurr distribution on the right column. 25 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 12 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Neural Control Variates at LO and NLO

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Signed neural control variates from normalizing flows, combined with neural importance sampling, reduce weight ranges and negative weights for LO and NLO phase-space integration and event generation.

  2. One Generator, Any Process: LLM-Conditioning for the LHC

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM embeddings condition generative networks for LHC events, yielding faster convergence, higher quality, and generalization to unseen processes.

  3. Nested-GPT for variable-multiplicity parton showers: A case study in the resummation of non-global logarithms

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Nested-GPT is an autoregressive Transformer that dynamically generates variable-multiplicity parton showers matching Monte Carlo references for non-global logarithm resummation in the large-Nc limit.

  4. Nested-GPT for variable-multiplicity parton showers: A case study in the resummation of non-global logarithms

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Nested-GPT is an autoregressive Transformer surrogate that generates variable-multiplicity parton showers while enforcing ordered Markovian branching and matches reference Monte Carlo results for leading-log non-globa...

  5. Agentic Re-Casting using Agentic Re-Simulations

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    An agentic AI system with a physicist in the loop re-casts an ATLAS ttZ measurement into a global top-quark SMEFT fit and recovers injected coloron Wilson coefficients in a repeatable benchmark.

  6. One Generator, Any Process: LLM-Conditioning for the LHC

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLM embeddings condition a generative transformer to enable faster convergence, better performance, and generalization to unseen LHC processes using a single model.

  7. An Optimal Transportation Approach for Improved Confidence Intervals

    stat.ME 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Optimal-transport couplings are used to construct confidence intervals that reduce coverage error relative to classical quantile-based intervals, with consistency theory and data-driven hyperparameters.

  8. An Optimal Transportation Approach for Improved Confidence Intervals

    stat.ME 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    An optimal transport method is proposed to construct confidence intervals with improved coverage, including theoretical consistency results, error bounds, and simulation comparisons.

  9. Monte Carlo Event Generators for Future Lepton Colliders

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Reviews selected challenges in Monte Carlo event generators for future lepton colliders including electroweak corrections, initial-state radiation, beam dynamics, perturbative QCD and non-perturbative modelling.

  10. Open LHC Monte Carlo Event Generation

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review of initiatives to make LHC Monte Carlo event generations available as open data to minimize redundant simulations and resource use.

  11. The Monte Carlo Ecosystem in High-Energy Physics: A Primer

    hep-ph 2026-05 accept novelty 1.0

    A primer by six leading developers maps the full Monte Carlo chain (matrix elements, parton showers, hadronisation, detector simulation, tuning, analysis) and the computing and reproducibility issues that come with it.

  12. The Monte Carlo Ecosystem in High-Energy Physics: A Primer

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted

    A primer that surveys the architecture, methodologies, computational challenges, and future trajectory of the Monte Carlo event generator ecosystem in collider physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    All-gluon amplitudes with off-shell recursion in multiplet bases

    [1]O. Bolinder, R. Frederix, and M. Sjodahl,All-gluon amplitudes with off-shell recursion in multiplet bases, arXiv:2507.22636[hep-ph]. [2]C. G. Papadopoulos,PHEGAS: A Phase space generator for automatic cross-section computation, Comput. Phys. Commun.137(2001) 247, arXiv:hep-ph/0007335. [3]F . Krauss, R. Kuhn, and G. Soff,AMEGIC++1.0: A Matrix element ge...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  2. [8]

    069, arXiv:2001.05478[hep-ph]. [35]C. Gao, J. Isaacson, and C. Krause,i-flow: High-dimensional Integration and Sampling with Normalizing Flows, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.1(1,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  3. [9]

    045023, arXiv:2001.05486 [physics.comp-ph]. [36]C. Gao, S. Höche, J. Isaacson, C. Krause, and H. Schulz,Event Generation with Normalizing Flows, Phys. Rev. D101(2020) 7, 076002, arXiv:2001.10028[hep-ph]. 27 SciPost Physics Submission [37]T . Heimel, R. Winterhalder, A. Butter, J. Isaacson, C. Krause, F . Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T . Plehn,MadNIS - Neura...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  4. [10]

    066, arXiv:2106.09474[hep-ph]. [46]D. Maître and H. Truong,A factorisation-aware Matrix element emulator, JHEP11(7,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [11]

    066, arXiv:2107.06625[hep-ph]. [47]R. Winterhalder, V . Magerya, E. Villa, S. P . Jones, M. Kerner, A. Butter, G. Heinrich, and T . Plehn,Targeting multi-loop integrals with neural networks, SciPost Phys.12(2022) 4, 129, arXiv:2112.09145[hep-ph]. [48]S. Badger, A. Butter, M. Luchmann, S. Pitz, and T . Plehn,Loop amplitudes from precision networks, SciPost...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [12]

    688, arXiv:1912.06794 [physics.ins-det]. [65]E. Buhmann, S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F . Gaede, G. Kasieczka, A. Korol, and K. Krüger, Getting High: High Fidelity Simulation of High Granularity Calorimeters with High Speed, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.5(2021) 1, 13, arXiv:2005.05334[physics.ins-det]. [66]C. Krause and D. Shih,CaloFlow: Fast and Accurate Generati...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  7. [15]

    Diefenbacher, E

    29 SciPost Physics Submission [71]S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F . Gaede, G. Kasieczka, C. Krause, I. Shekhzadeh, and D. Shih, L2LFlows: Generating High-Fidelity 3D Calorimeter Images, arXiv:2302.11594 [physics.ins-det]. [72]A. Xu, S. Han, X. Ju, and H. Wang,Generative Machine Learning for Detector Response Modeling with a Conditional Normalizing Flow, arXiv...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [88]

    Paszke, S

    [88]A. Paszke, S. Gross, F . Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury , G. Chanan, T . Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Köpf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy , B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala,Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library, inAdvances in Neural Information Processi...

    work page 2019

  9. [192]

    [9]G. P . Lepage,VEGAS: AN ADAPTIVE MULTIDIMENSIONAL INTEGRATION PROGRAM, . [10]G. P . Lepage,Adaptive multidimensional integration: VEGAS enhanced, J. Comput. Phys. 439(2021) 110386, arXiv:2009.05112[physics.comp-ph]. [11]A. van Hameren,PARNI for importance sampling and density estimation, Acta Phys. Polon. B40(2009) 259, arXiv:0710.2448[hep-ph]. [12]R. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [568]

    [16]P . D. Draggiotis, A. van Hameren, and R. Kleiss,SARGE: An Algorithm for generating QCD antennas, Phys. Lett. B483(2000) 124, arXiv:hep-ph/0004047. [17]A. van Hameren and C. G. Papadopoulos,A Hierarchical phase space generator for QCD antenna structures, Eur. Phys. J. C25(2002) 563, arXiv:hep-ph/0204055. [18]S. Dittmaier and M. Roth,LUSIFER: A LUcid a...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  11. [759]

    Caravaglios and M

    [20]F . Caravaglios and M. Moretti,An algorithm to compute Born scattering amplitudes without Feynman graphs, Phys. Lett. B358(1995) 332, arXiv:hep-ph/9507237. [21]F . Caravaglios, M. L. Mangano, M. Moretti, and R. Pittau,A New approach to multijet calculations in hadron collisions, Nucl. Phys. B539(1999) 215, arXiv:hep-ph/9807570. [22]P . Draggiotis, R. ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  12. [2008]

    Byckling and K

    [15]E. Byckling and K. Kajantie,N-particle phase space in terms of invariant momentum transfers, Nucl. Phys. B9(1969)

    work page 1969

  13. [2019]

    arXiv:1912.01703. [89]D. P . Kingma and J. Ba,Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, arXiv:1412.6980 [cs.LG]. [90]A. Power, Y. Burda, H. Edwards, I. Babuschkin, and V . Misra,Grokking: Generalization beyond overfitting on small algorithmic datasets, arXiv:2201.02177[cs.LG]. [91]D. Manning-Coe, J. Gliozzi, A. G. Stapleton, E. Hirst, G. D. Tomasi, B. B...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  14. [2020]

    [33]I.-K

    053, arXiv:1810.11509[hep-ph]. [33]I.-K. Chen, M. D. Klimek, and M. Perelstein,Improved Neural Network Monte Carlo Simulation, SciPost Phys.10(9,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [2021]

    023, arXiv:2009.07819[hep-ph]. [34]E. Bothmann, T . Janßen, M. Knobbe, T . Schmale, and S. Schumann,Exploring phase space with Neural Importance Sampling, SciPost Phys.8(1,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [2022]

    164, arXiv:2109.11964[hep-ph]. [85]T . Janßen, D. Maître, S. Schumann, F . Siegert, and H. Truong,Unweighting multijet event generation using factorisation-aware neural networks, SciPost Phys.15(2023) 3, 107, arXiv:2301.13562[hep-ph]. [86]T . Herrmann, T . Janßen, M. Schenker, S. Schumann, and F . Siegert,Accelerating multijet-merged event generation with...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023