pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.04165 · v1 · pith:56NPXRGXnew · submitted 2026-06-02 · ✦ hep-ex · cs.LG· hep-ph· physics.ins-det

CaloTrilogy: Toward a Breakthrough in One-Step, End-to-End, Physics-Guided Shower Generation for Modern Calorimeters

Cheng Jiang , Sitian Qian , Kevin Pedro , Oz Amram , Huilin Qu , Maggie Voetberg This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 07:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ex cs.LGhep-phphysics.ins-det
keywords calorimeter simulationgenerative modelsfast simulationphysics-guided machine learningshower generationflow matchingdiffusion modelshigh granularity detectors
0
0 comments X

The pith

A new framework generates calorimeter showers competitively with diffusion models using only one or a few steps and physics-guided training losses.

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

The paper presents a unified approach to fast calorimeter shower simulation that integrates fast sampling via an average velocity field, a generative prior learned directly from data, and physics constraints enforced only at training time. These elements allow end-to-end generation without auxiliary networks or repeated evaluations during inference. If the approach holds, it could reduce the computational burden of high-granularity detector simulation at colliders while preserving consistency with underlying physics on public datasets. The results position the method as a candidate to replace slower Monte Carlo tools in production workflows.

Core claim

The CaloTrilogy framework achieves shower quality competitive with state-of-the-art flow and diffusion models on multiple public high-granularity calorimeter datasets by sampling in one or a few steps, while the inter-layer structure remains consistent with the underlying physics.

What carries the argument

The unified framework that combines an average velocity field integrator for few-step sampling, a learned generative prior built from data, and physics-guided loss terms applied only during training.

If this is right

  • Shower generation runs in one or a few evaluations while remaining competitive in quality with flow and diffusion baselines.
  • Inter-layer shower structure stays consistent with the underlying physics without post-processing.
  • End-to-end inference requires no auxiliary networks or extra computational overhead at sampling time.
  • The method applies across several public high-granularity calorimeter datasets.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The separation of physics constraints to training time could extend to other high-dimensional generative tasks where inference speed matters.
  • Replacing random noise with a data-derived prior may improve sample quality in related simulation domains.
  • Scaling tests on full detector geometries would reveal whether the few-step property holds under more complex conditions.

Load-bearing premise

Physics-guided loss terms can impose inductive biases on key observables at training time without needing extra networks or added cost during end-to-end sampling.

What would settle it

Run the model on a new high-granularity calorimeter dataset and check whether energy deposition patterns and shower shapes per layer deviate systematically from Geant4 reference distributions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.04165 by Cheng Jiang, Huilin Qu, Kevin Pedro, Maggie Voetberg, Oz Amram, Sitian Qian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic architecture of the proposed model. Conditional inputs are first mapped to a Gaussian mixture model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. One-dimensional projections and two-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Mean voxel distributions across different layers for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The main generative loss term (MF, upper) and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Reciprocal Wasserstein distance and cosine similar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Reciprocal Wasserstein distance for various high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Distribution of Pearson correlation coefficients and their differences with respect to the reference layer energies for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. KPD and FPD scores, together with low- and high-level AUC classifier performance, comparing Geant4 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Comparison of layer-wise energy distributions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Reciprocal Wasserstein distance for various high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Wasserstein distance and separation power for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Mean occupancy across layers for MeanFlow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

High-precision calorimeter simulation at current and future colliders imposes rapidly growing computational demands, motivating the development of machine-learning surrogates for traditional Monte Carlo tools such as Geant4. Flow matching and diffusion-based generative models have become leading approaches for high-dimensional fast simulation because of their sample quality, but typically require ${\cal O}(100)$ function evaluations at inference and often rely on auxiliary networks to constrain global observables, compromising streamlined end-to-end generation. We introduce a unified framework that improves the balance between speed, shower quality, and physics fidelity. The method combines: (i) an average velocity field integrator that enables sampling in one or a few evaluations; (ii) a learned generative prior in shower space, constructed from data rather than random noise; and (iii) physics-guided loss terms that impose inductive biases on key observables during training. These elements are training time regularizers, preserving end-to-end inference with no additional cost. With only one or a few evaluation steps, the model achieves shower quality competitive with state-of-the-art flow and diffusion approaches, tested on several public high granularity calorimeter datasets. The results demonstrate inter-layer shower structure consistent with the underlying physics, providing a strong candidate for future fast simulation workflows.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces CaloTrilogy, a unified framework for fast calorimeter shower generation. It combines (i) an average velocity field integrator for sampling in one or a few evaluations, (ii) a learned generative prior constructed from data rather than random noise, and (iii) physics-guided loss terms applied only at training time. The approach is tested on several public high-granularity calorimeter datasets and claims to achieve shower quality competitive with state-of-the-art flow and diffusion models while producing inter-layer structures consistent with underlying physics, all while preserving end-to-end inference without auxiliary networks or extra sampling cost.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated, the work could meaningfully advance fast simulation techniques in high-energy physics by addressing the O(100) evaluation cost of current flow/diffusion models. Confining physics constraints to training-time regularizers is a design strength that supports streamlined deployment. Testing on multiple public datasets supports potential reproducibility. The emphasis on end-to-end generation without inference overhead aligns with practical needs for collider workflows.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / §3] Abstract / §3 (average velocity field integrator): The headline result—that competitive shower quality is achieved with one or a few evaluations—depends on this integrator reducing function evaluations while the learned prior and physics losses act only at training time. The provided text supplies neither the integrator's mathematical definition, its explicit relation to standard flow-matching velocity fields, nor quantitative ablations of quality metrics (e.g., shower shape or energy resolution) across step counts. This is load-bearing for separating integrator performance from dataset-specific effects.
  2. [Results section] Results section / tables or figures: The abstract asserts competitive quality and physics-consistent inter-layer structure on public datasets, but the text contains no referenced quantitative metrics, tables, or ablation studies. Without these, the competitiveness claim and the assertion that physics-guided losses impose inductive biases without compromising end-to-end inference cannot be evaluated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The title uses 'CaloTrilogy' but the abstract does not define or expand the term; a short parenthetical explanation would aid readers unfamiliar with the framework.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: Consider citing the specific public datasets (e.g., by name or reference) used for testing to strengthen the reproducibility statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / §3] Abstract / §3 (average velocity field integrator): The headline result—that competitive shower quality is achieved with one or a few evaluations—depends on this integrator reducing function evaluations while the learned prior and physics losses act only at training time. The provided text supplies neither the integrator's mathematical definition, its explicit relation to standard flow-matching velocity fields, nor quantitative ablations of quality metrics (e.g., shower shape or energy resolution) across step counts. This is load-bearing for separating integrator performance from dataset-specific effects.

    Authors: We agree that the mathematical definition of the average velocity field integrator, its explicit relation to standard flow-matching velocity fields, and quantitative ablations across step counts are necessary to substantiate the headline claims. In the revised manuscript we expand §3 with the full derivation of the averaged velocity field (including its closed-form relation to the flow-matching ODE) and add new ablation tables and figures reporting shower-shape and energy-resolution metrics as a function of evaluation count, with direct comparisons to multi-step baselines. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] Results section / tables or figures: The abstract asserts competitive quality and physics-consistent inter-layer structure on public datasets, but the text contains no referenced quantitative metrics, tables, or ablation studies. Without these, the competitiveness claim and the assertion that physics-guided losses impose inductive biases without compromising end-to-end inference cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the results section lacks explicit references to quantitative metrics, tables, and ablations. The revised manuscript adds a dedicated results table summarizing shower-shape, energy-resolution, and inter-layer correlation metrics on all tested public datasets, together with side-by-side comparisons to state-of-the-art flow and diffusion models. Additional ablation studies on the physics-guided losses are included to demonstrate their training-time effect on fidelity while preserving end-to-end inference. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; claims rest on proposed architectural components without evident self-referential definitions or fitted predictions

full rationale

The abstract describes a unified framework combining an average velocity field integrator, a learned generative prior, and physics-guided loss terms for calorimeter shower simulation. No equations, derivations, or self-citations are provided that would allow any performance claim to reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or load-bearing prior work by the same authors. The results are presented as empirical outcomes on public datasets, with the method's elements acting as training regularizers that preserve end-to-end inference. This structure is self-contained against external benchmarks and does not trigger any of the enumerated circularity patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the central claim rests on unstated assumptions about loss-term effectiveness and dataset representativeness that cannot be audited from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5778 in / 1074 out tokens · 18842 ms · 2026-06-28T07:39:47.256344+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · 11 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    CMS Collaboration,The Phase-2 Upgrade of the CMS Endcap Calorimeter, Tech. Rep. CERN-LHCC-2017-023, CMS-TDR-019 (CERN, 2017)

    2017

  2. [2]

    Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4 Collaboration), GEANT4—a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelliet al.(GEANT4 Collaboration), GEANT4—a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506, 250 (2003)

    2003

  3. [3]

    Allisonet al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl

    J. Allisonet al., Recent developments in Geant4, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A835, 186 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Allisonet al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans

    J. Allisonet al., Geant4 developments and applications, IEEE Trans. Nucl. Sci.53, 270 (2006)

    2006

  5. [5]

    Pedroet al.(CMS Collaboration), Integration and performance of new technologies in the CMS simulation, EPJ Web Conf.245, 02020 (2020), arXiv:2004.02327 [hep-ex]

    K. Pedroet al.(CMS Collaboration), Integration and performance of new technologies in the CMS simulation, EPJ Web Conf.245, 02020 (2020), arXiv:2004.02327 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Paganini, L

    M. Paganini, L. de Oliveira, and B. Nachman, Ac- celerating science with generative adversarial networks: An application to 3D particle showers in multilayer calorimeters, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 042003 (2018), arXiv:1705.02355 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Paganini, L

    M. Paganini, L. de Oliveira, and B. Nachman, Calo- GAN: Simulating 3D high energy particle showers in multilayer electromagnetic calorimeters with generative adversarial networks, Phys. Rev. D97, 014021 (2018), arXiv:1712.10321 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    de Oliveira, M

    L. de Oliveira, M. Paganini, and B. Nachman, Control- ling physical attributes in GAN-accelerated simulation of electromagnetic calorimeters, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1085, 042017 (2018), arXiv:1711.08813 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Erdmann, L

    M. Erdmann, L. Geiger, J. Glombitza, and D. Schmidt, Generating and refining particle detector simulations us- ing the Wasserstein distance in adversarial networks, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.2, 4 (2018), arXiv:1802.03325 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [11]

    Erdmann, J

    M. Erdmann, J. Glombitza, and T. Quast, Precise sim- ulation of electromagnetic calorimeter showers using a wasserstein generative adversarial network, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.3, 4 (2019), arXiv:1807.01954 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv 2019

  11. [12]

    Musella and F

    P. Musella and F. Pandolfi, Fast and accurate simu- lation of particle detectors using generative adversar- ial networks, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.2, 8 (2018), arXiv:1805.00850 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [13]

    Belaynehet al., Calorimetry with deep learning: Par- ticle simulation and reconstruction for collider physics, Eur

    D. Belaynehet al., Calorimetry with deep learning: Par- ticle simulation and reconstruction for collider physics, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 688 (2020), arXiv:1912.06794 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2020

  13. [14]

    Butter, S

    A. Butter, S. Diefenbacher, G. Kasieczka, B. Nachman, and T. Plehn, GANplifying event samples, SciPost Phys. 10, 139 (2021), arXiv:2008.06545 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

  14. [15]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Fast Simulation of the ATLAS Calorimeter System with Generative Adversarial Net- works, Tech. Rep. ATL-SOFT-PUB-2020-006 (CERN, 2020)

    2020

  15. [16]

    Ghosh, Deep generative models for fast shower simula- tion in ATLAS, J

    A. Ghosh, Deep generative models for fast shower simula- tion in ATLAS, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.1525, 012077 (2020)

    2020

  16. [17]

    Aadet al.(ATLAS), AtlFast3: The next generation of fast simulation in ATLAS, Comput

    G. Aadet al.(ATLAS), AtlFast3: The next generation of fast simulation in ATLAS, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.6, 7 (2022), arXiv:2109.02551 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  17. [18]

    Faucci Giannelli and R

    M. Faucci Giannelli and R. Zhang, CaloShowerGAN, a generative adversarial network model for fast calorimeter shower simulation, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 597 (2024), arXiv:2309.06515 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  18. [19]

    Simsek, B

    E. Simsek, B. Isildak, A. Dogru, R. Aydogan, A. B. Bayrak, and S. Ertekin, CALPAGAN: Calorime- try for particles using generative adversarial net- works, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2024, 083C01 (2024), arXiv:2401.02248 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2024

  19. [20]

    J. Birk, F. Gaede, A. Hallin, G. Kasieczka, M. Mozzan- ica, and H. Rose, OmniJet-α C: Learning point cloud calorimeter simulations using generative transformers, JINST20(07), P07007, arXiv:2501.05534 [physics.ins- det]

    arXiv

  20. [21]

    J. C. Cresswell, B. L. Ross, G. Loaiza-Ganem, H. Reyes- Gonz´ alez, M. Letizia, and A. L. Caterini, CaloMan: Fast generation of calorimeter showers with density estima- tion on learned manifolds, inNeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Machine Learning and the Physical Sciences(2022) arXiv:2211.15380 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2022

  21. [22]

    Hoque, H

    S. Hoque, H. Jia, A. Abhishek, M. Fadaie, J. Q. Toledo- Mar´ ın, T. Vale, R. G. Melko, M. Swiatlowski, and W. T. Fedorko, CaloQVAE: Simulating high-energy particle- calorimeter interactions using hybrid quantum-classical generative models, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1244 (2024), arXiv:2312.03179 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  22. [23]

    Q. Liu, C. Shimmin, X. Liu, E. Shlizerman, S.-C. Li, and S.-C. Hsu, Calo-VQ: Vector-quantized two-stage generative model in calorimeter simulation, (2024), arXiv:2405.06605 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2024

  23. [24]

    Kansal, J

    R. Kansal, J. Duarte, K. Duarte, and M. Pierini, Graph generative models for fast detector simulations in high energy physics 10.48550/arXiv.2106.11535 (2021), arXiv:2106.11535 [hep-ex]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.11535 2021

  24. [25]

    B. Hashemi, Deep Generative Models for Ultra- High Granularity Particle Physics Detector Simu- lation: A Voyage From Emulation to Extrap- olation 10.5282/edoc.34137 (2023), arXiv:2403.13825 [physics.ins-det]

    work page doi:10.5282/edoc.34137 2023

  25. [26]

    Mazurek (LHCb), Machine learning in LHCb Simu- lation: From fast to flash, PoSLHCP2025, 125 (2026), arXiv:2511.02020 [hep-ex]

    M. Mazurek (LHCb), Machine learning in LHCb Simu- lation: From fast to flash, PoSLHCP2025, 125 (2026), arXiv:2511.02020 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  26. [27]

    Krause and D

    C. Krause and D. Shih, CaloFlow: Fast and accurate generation of calorimeter showers with normalizing flows, Phys. Rev. D107, 113003 (2021)

    2021

  27. [28]

    Krause and D

    C. Krause and D. Shih, CaloFlow II: Even faster and still accurate generation of calorimeter showers with normal- izing flows, Phys. Rev. D107, 113004 (2021)

    2021

  28. [29]

    Krause, I

    C. Krause, I. Pang, and D. Shih, CaloFlow for CaloChallenge dataset 1, SciPost Phys.16, 126 (2024), arXiv:2210.14245 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2024

  29. [30]

    Krause, B

    C. Krause, B. Nachman, I. Pang, D. Shih, and Y. Zhu, Anomaly detection with flow-based fast calorimeter simu- lators, Phys. Rev. D110, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.0c5036 (2024), arXiv:2312.11618 [hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.0c5036 2024

  30. [31]

    Ernst, L

    F. Ernst, L. Favaro, C. Krause, T. Plehn, and D. Shih, Normalizing flows for high-dimensional detector simula- tions, SciPost Phys.18, 081 (2025), arXiv:2312.09290 [cs.LG]. 12

    arXiv 2025

  31. [32]

    C. Gao, J. Isaacson, and C. Krause, i-flow: High- dimensional integration and sampling with normalizing flows, Mach. Learn. Sci. Technol.4, 045023 (2020)

    2020

  32. [33]

    M. R. Buckley, C. Krause, I. Pang, and D. Shih, Inductive simulation of calorimeter showers with normalizing flows, Phys. Rev. D109, 033006 (2024), arXiv:2305.11934 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2024

  33. [34]

    K¨ ach, D

    B. K¨ ach, D. Kr¨ ucker, I. Melzer-Pellmann, M. Scham, S. Schnake, and A. Verney-Provatas, JetFlow: Generat- ing jets with conditioned and mass constrained normal- ising flows, (2022), arXiv:2211.13630 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  34. [35]

    Diefenbacher, E

    S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, C. Krause, I. Shekhzadeh, and D. Shih, L2LFlows: Gen- erating high-fidelity 3D calorimeter images, JINST18 (10), P10017, arXiv:2302.11594 [cs.LG]

    arXiv

  35. [36]

    Heimel, R

    T. Heimel, R. Winterhalder, A. Butter, J. Isaacson, C. Krause, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T. Plehn, Mad- NIS – neural multi-channel importance sampling, SciPost Phys.15, 141 (2023), arXiv:2212.06172 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  36. [37]

    Heimel, N

    T. Heimel, N. Huetsch, R. Winterhalder, A. Butter, O. Mattelaer, and T. Plehn, The MadNIS reloaded, Sci- Post Phys.17, 023 (2024)

    2024

  37. [38]

    Leigh, J

    M. Leigh, J. A. Raine, K. Zoch, and T. Golling,ν-Flows: Conditional Neutrino Regression, SciPost Phys.14, 159 (2023), arXiv:2207.00664 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2023

  38. [39]

    K¨ ach, D

    B. K¨ ach, D. Kr¨ ucker, and I. Melzer-Pellmann, Point cloud generation using transformer encoders and normal- ising flows, (2022), arXiv:2211.13623 [cs.LG]

    arXiv 2022

  39. [40]

    I. Pang, D. Shih, and J. A. Raine, Calorimeter shower super-resolution, Phys. Rev. D109, 092009 (2024)

    2024

  40. [41]

    T. Buss, F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, C. Krause, and D. Shih, Convolutional L2LFlows: generating accurate showers in highly granular calorimeters using convolutional normal- izing flows, JINST19(09), P09003, arXiv:2405.20407 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  41. [42]

    H. Bahl, S. Diefenbacher, N. Elmer, T. Plehn, and J. Spinner, Forecasting generative amplification 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08048 (2025), arXiv:2509.08048 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08048 2025

  42. [43]

    Schnake, D

    S. Schnake, D. Kr¨ ucker, and K. Borras, CaloPointFlow II: Generating calorimeter showers as point clouds 10.48550/arXiv.2403.15782 (2024), arXiv:2403.15782 [physics.ins-det]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.15782 2024

  43. [44]

    Erdmann, J

    J. Erdmann, J. Kann, F. Mausolf, and P. Wissmann, ParaFlow: Fast calorimeter simulations parameterized in upstream material configurations, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 857 (2025), arXiv:2503.21461 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    Amram and K

    O. Amram and K. Pedro, Denoising diffusion models with geometry adaptation for high fidelity calorime- ter simulation, Physical Review D108, 072014 (2023), arXiv:2308.03876 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2023

  45. [46]

    Mikuni and B

    V. Mikuni and B. Nachman, Score-based generative mod- els for calorimeter shower simulation, Phys. Rev. D106, 092009 (2022), arXiv:2206.11898 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2022

  46. [47]

    F. T. Acosta, V. Mikuni, B. Nachman, M. Arratia, B. Karki, R. Milton, P. Karande, and A. Angerami, Comparison of point cloud and image-based models for calorimeter fast simulation, JINST19(05), P05003, arXiv:2307.04780 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  47. [48]

    Mikuni and B

    V. Mikuni and B. Nachman, CaloScore v2: Single- shot calorimeter shower simulation with diffusion models, JINST19(02), P02001, arXiv:2308.03847 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  48. [49]

    Jiang, S

    C. Jiang, S. Qian, and H. Qu, Choose your diffusion: Ef- ficient and flexible ways to accelerate the diffusion model in fast high energy physics simulation, SciPost Phys.18, 195 (2025), arXiv:2401.13162 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Kobylianskii, N

    D. Kobylianskii, N. Soybelman, E. Dreyer, and E. Gross, Graph-based diffusion model for fast shower generation in calorimeters with irregular geometry, Phys. Rev. D 110, 072003 (2024), arXiv:2402.11575 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  50. [51]

    Jiang, S

    C. Jiang, S. Qian, and H. Qu, BUFF: Boosted decision tree based ultra-fast flow matching 10.48550/arXiv.2404.18219 (2024), arXiv:2404.18219 [hep-ex]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.18219 2024

  51. [52]

    Brehmer, V

    J. Brehmer, V. Bres´ o, P. de Haan, T. Plehn, H. Qu, J. Spinner, and J. Thaler, A lorentz-equivariant trans- former for all of the LHC, SciPost Phys.19, 108 (2025), arXiv:2411.00446 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    Leigh, D

    M. Leigh, D. Sengupta, G. Qu´ etant, J. A. Raine, K. Zoch, and T. Golling, PC-JeDi: Diffusion for particle cloud generation in high energy physics, SciPost Phys.16, 018 (2024), arXiv:2303.05376 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  53. [54]

    Leigh, D

    M. Leigh, D. Sengupta, J. A. Raine, G. Qu´ etant, and T. Golling, Faster diffusion model with improved quality for particle cloud generation, Phys. Rev. D109, 012010 (2024), arXiv:2307.06836 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2024

  54. [55]

    Favaro, A

    L. Favaro, A. Ore, S. P. Schweitzer, and T. Plehn, CaloDREAM – Detector response emulation via at- tentive flow matching, SciPost Phys.18, 088 (2025), arXiv:2405.09629 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  55. [56]

    Vaselli, C

    F. Vaselli, C. Sun, T. Aarrestad, D. Danopoulos, R. Os- kari Niemi, M. M. Glowacki, K. Govorkova, V. Loncar, F. Pantaleo, and M. Pierini, It’s not a FAD: first demon- stration of flows for unsupervised anomaly detection at 40 MHz for use at the Large Hadron Collider, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.7, 025052 (2026), arXiv:2508.11594 [hep-ex]

    arXiv 2026

  56. [57]

    Favaro, A

    L. Favaro, A. Giammanco, and C. Krause, Fast, accurate, and precise detector simulation with vision transform- ers 10.48550/arXiv.2509.25169 (2025), arXiv:2509.25169 [hep-ph]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.25169 2025

  57. [58]

    T. Buss, H. Day-Hall, F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, K. Kr¨ uger, A. Korol, T. Madlener, P. McKeown, M. Mozzanica, and L. Valente, CaloClouds3: Ultra- fast geometry-independent highly-granular calorimeter simulation, JINST21(03), P03018, arXiv:2511.01460 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  58. [59]

    T. Buss, F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, A. Korol, K. Kr¨ uger, P. McKeown, and M. Mozzanica, CaloHadronic: A diffusion model for the generation of hadronic show- ers 10.48550/arXiv.2506.21720 (2025), arXiv:2506.21720 [physics.ins-det]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.21720 2025

  59. [60]

    Buhmann, S

    E. Buhmann, S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, A. Korol, W. Korcari, K. Kr¨ uger, and P. McKeown, CaloClouds: Fast geometry-independent highly-granular calorimeter simulation, JINST18(11), P11025, arXiv:2305.04847 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  60. [61]

    Buhmann, F

    E. Buhmann, F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, A. Korol, W. Kor- cari, K. Kr¨ uger, and P. McKeown, CaloClouds II: Ultra- fast geometry-independent highly-granular calorimeter simulation, JINST19(04), P04020, arXiv:2309.05704 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv

  61. [62]

    Raikwar, A

    P. Raikwar, A. Zaborowska, P. McKeown, R. Cardoso, M. Piorczynski, and K. Yeo, A generalisable genera- tive model for multi-detector calorimeter simulation 10.48550/arXiv.2509.07700 (2025), arXiv:2509.07700 [physics.ins-det]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.07700 2025

  62. [63]

    Gaede, G

    F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, and L. Valente, Cross- 13 geometry transfer learning in fast electromagnetic shower simulation 10.48550/arXiv.2512.00187 (2025), arXiv:2512.00187 [physics.ins-det]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.00187 2025

  63. [64]

    T. Buss, H. Day-Hall, F. Gaede, G. Kasieczka, and K. Kr¨ uger, AllShowers: One model for all calorimeter showers 10.48550/arXiv.2601.11716 (2026), arXiv:2601.11716 [physics.ins-det]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.11716 2026

  64. [65]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, U-net: Convo- lutional networks for biomedical image segmentation, in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Inter- vention – MICCAI 2015, edited by N. Navab, J. Horneg- ger, W. M. Wells, and A. F. Frangi (Springer Interna- tional Publishing, Cham, 2015) p. 234, arXiv:1505.04597 [cs.CV]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [66]

    Vaswani, N

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, L. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, Attention Is All You Need, in31st International Confer- ence on Neural Information Processing Systems(2017) arXiv:1706.03762 [cs.CL]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  66. [67]

    Y. Song, P. Dhariwal, M. Chen, and I. Sutskever, Consistency models 10.48550/arXiv.2303.01469 (2023), arXiv:2303.01469 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2303.01469 2023

  67. [68]

    Z. Geng, M. Deng, X. Bai, J. Z. Kolter, and K. He, Mean flows for one-step generative model- ing 10.48550/arXiv.2505.13447 (2025), arXiv:2505.13447 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.13447 2025

  68. [69]

    CaloChallenge Collaboration, CaloChallenge dataset 2: Electromagnetic showers in a high-granularity calorime- ter, (2022)

    2022

  69. [70]

    CaloChallenge Collaboration, CaloChallenge dataset 3: Highly granular calorimeter geometry, (2022)

    2022

  70. [71]

    Amramet al., CaloChallenge 2022: a community chal- lenge for fast calorimeter simulation, Rept

    O. Amramet al., CaloChallenge 2022: a community chal- lenge for fast calorimeter simulation, Rept. Prog. Phys. 88, 116201 (2025), arXiv:2410.21611 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2022

  71. [72]

    Abramowiczet al., International large detector: In- terim design report 10.48550/arXiv.2003.01116 (2020), arXiv:2003.01116 [physics.ins-det]

    H. Abramowiczet al., International large detector: In- terim design report 10.48550/arXiv.2003.01116 (2020), arXiv:2003.01116 [physics.ins-det]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2003.01116 2003

  72. [73]

    J. Repondet al., Design and electronics commission- ing of the physics prototype of a Si-W electromagnetic calorimeter for the international linear collider, JINST 3, P08001, arXiv:0805.4833 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  73. [74]

    J. Ho, A. Jain, and P. Abbeel, Denoising diffusion probabilistic models 10.48550/arXiv.2006.11239 (2020), arXiv:2006.11239 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.11239 2006

  74. [75]

    Y. Song, J. Sohl-Dickstein, D. P. Kingma, A. Kumar, S. Ermon, and B. Poole, Score-based generative modeling through stochastic differential equations, ICLR (2021), arXiv:2011.13456 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [76]

    Elucidating the Design Space of Diffusion-Based Generative Models

    T. Karras, M. Aittala, T. Aila, and S. Laine, Elu- cidating the design space of diffusion-based genera- tive models, NeurIPS 10.48550/arXiv.2206.00364 (2022), arXiv:2206.00364 [cs.CV]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2206.00364 2022

  76. [77]

    Y. Xu, Z. Zhang, Y. Song, and S. Ermon, Restart sampling for improving generative processes 10.48550/arXiv.2306.14878 (2023), arXiv:2306.14878 [cs.LG]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.14878 2023

  77. [78]

    Flow Matching for Generative Modeling

    Y. Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel, and M. Le, Flow matching for generative model- ing 10.48550/arXiv.2210.02747 (2023), arXiv:2210.02747 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.02747 2023

  78. [79]

    A. Tong, Y. Lipman, R. T. Q. Chen, M. Nickel, and M. Le, Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport 10.48550/arXiv.2302.00482 (2023), arXiv:2302.00482 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.00482 2023

  79. [80]

    Zhang, A

    H. Zhang, A. Siarohin, W. Menapace, M. Vasilkovsky, S. Tulyakov, Q. Qu, and I. Skorokhodov, Al- phaFlow: Understanding and improving meanflow mod- els 10.48550/arXiv.2510.20771 (2025), arXiv:2510.20771 [cs.LG]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.20771 2025

  80. [81]

    H. You, B. Liu, and H. He, Modular MeanFlow: To- wards stable and scalable one-step generative model- ing 10.48550/arXiv.2508.17426 (2025), arXiv:2508.17426 [cs.LG]

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.17426 2025

Showing first 80 references.