Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 6 cited by

Search for new physics in final states with semi-visible jets or anomalous signatures using the ATLAS detector

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper reports a search for semi-visible jets from a dark QCD sector and finds no excess, setting the first limits on $Z'$-mediated semi-visible jet production at hadron colliders.

desk verdict First ATLAS search for resonantly produced semi-visible jets and first real-data application of the ANTELOPE anomaly detector — a clean null result whose only real soft spot is that the SR background function is not validated in the SR's jet-width regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01634 v2 pith:GZKBCWLE submitted 2025-05-02 hep-ex

ATLAS Collaboration This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ex
keywords semi-visiblejetsdarkQCDhiddenvalleyanomalydetectionparticleflownetworktransversemassZ-primemediatorLHCRun2
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

This paper reports a search for a strongly coupled hidden dark sector at the Large Hadron Collider, using 140 fb$^{-1}$ of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=13$ TeV. The signal under study is a heavy $Z'$ mediator decaying to two quarks of a dark QCD theory, each of which showers into a semi-visible jet: some hadrons decay back to Standard Model particles while others escape the detector, leaving missing energy spread through the jet. Two machine-learning selectors define the search regions: a supervised Particle Flow Network tuned to simulated semi-visible jets, and ANTELOPE, a semi-supervised anomaly detector trained on data without committing to one signal model. The central claim is that no significant excess appears over the smoothly falling transverse-mass background in either region, so the paper sets the first limits from this experiment on $Z'$-mediated semi-visible jets, excluding mediator masses from 2000 to 3200 GeV for invisible fraction $R_{inv}$ between 0.2 and 0.37 at 95% confidence. This matters because it narrows the allowed parameter space of dark-sector models and demonstrates that an anomaly-detection region can complement a dedicated signal region for generic new-physics searches.

What carries the argument

The statistical analysis is built on the transverse mass $m_T$, computed from the two leading jets and the missing transverse energy, and on a five-parameter background function $f(x) = p_1(1-x)^{p_2} x^{p_3+p_4 \ln x + p_5 \ln^2 x}$ with $x = m_T/\sqrt{s}$, whose parameters float in every fit. Signal selection relies on two permutation-invariant networks that take the up-to-160 highest-transverse-momentum tracks in the two leading jets as an unordered set: the Particle Flow Network (a DeepSet classifier that encodes each track and sums the encodings) and ANTELOPE, which feeds the pre-trained PFN latent-space encoding into a variational autoencoder trained on data, producing an anomaly score. The subleading jet width $W_{j2}$ separates the signal region from the background control region. BumpHunter, run on the rebinned $m_T$ spectrum, quantifies the significance of any adjacent-bin excess without assuming a signal shape.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis on the full Run 3 data set and check whether a localized excess appears in the transverse-mass spectrum of either signal region; a BumpHunter p-value below 0.01 on an unblinded spectrum, or a greater-than-5-sigma local excess in a signal-plus-background fit, would contradict the paper's null result. A cheaper check is to repeat the background fit with a different functional family (for example, a binned control-region template) and see whether the observed limits and the most significant ANTELOPE excess move beyond the quoted uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in 140 fb$^{-1}$ of 13 TeV proton-proton collisions, the $m_T$ spectra in both machine-learning-selected signal regions are consistent with Standard Model background. The background-only fit to the transverse mass distribution has good quality in the PFN region (p = 0.26) and in the ANTELOPE region (p = 0.74). The most significant excess in the anomaly region, found by BumpHunter between 1700 and 1900 GeV, has a p-value of 0.81, so no Gaussian resonance is indicated. Consequently the paper reports 95% CL upper limits on the production cross section times branching ratio for $Z'$ mediators decaying to semi-visible jets, excluding $m_{Z'}$ from 2000 to 3200 GeV for $R_{inv}$ values from 0.2 to 0.37. The ANTELOPE region, though not used for those limits, gives better sensitivity than the dedicated region to alternative models such as emerging jets and gluino R-hadrons, by factors of roughly three to five in event enrichment.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the smooth five-parameter function used for the background describes the transverse-mass distribution in the signal regions, even though it was validated mainly on control and validation regions; if the jet-width or machine-learning selections sculpt the high-mass tail more strongly than those tests show, the quoted limits and significances would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A $Z'$ decaying to dark quarks with mass below about 3.2 TeV and invisible fraction up to 0.37 is excluded, so benchmark dark-QCD models in that region cannot account for the data.
  • The five-parameter background function passes closure tests in control and validation regions and reproduces injected signals linearly, which supports using the same data-driven fitting strategy for future resonant searches.
  • The ANTELOPE region, though about a factor of two weaker than the dedicated PFN region for semi-visible jets, is roughly an order of magnitude better for emerging-jet and gluino R-hadron benchmarks, demonstrating that semi-supervised anomaly detection can broaden coverage.
  • The observed and expected limits agree, meaning the data contain no hint of a signal that would weaken the exclusion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not combine the PFN and ANTELOPE regions in one fit; a combined likelihood would likely improve the expected exclusion modestly and is a natural next step.
  • Because ANTELOPE's score correlates with track displacement and event-level kinematics, the same trained model could be reinterpreted for displaced or long-lived dark-hadron signatures without retraining, something the paper's emerging-jet injection tests hint at but do not exploit.
  • A closure test using a completely different background model, such as a binned template extrapolated from the control region or a machine-learned density, would show how much of the quoted exclusion depends on the chosen five-parameter function.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a search for new physics in hadronic final states with semi-visible jets or anomalous signatures using 140 fb^-1 of 13 TeV ATLAS data. A Z' mediator decaying to two dark quarks is the benchmark signal; the analysis defines two signal regions: SRPFN, based on a supervised Particle Flow Network, and SRAD, based on the semi-supervised anomaly detector ANTELOPE. The transverse mass mT spectrum above 1.5 TeV is fitted with a five-parameter empirical function, with control and validation regions built from inverted Wj2 and ML-score requirements. No significant excess is observed: the most significant ANTELOPE excess (1700-1900 GeV) has BumpHunter p = 0.81, and the background-only fits have p-values of 0.26 (PFN) and 0.74 (ANTELOPE). Upper limits at 95% CL exclude mZ' between 2000 and 3200 GeV for Rinv between 0.2 and 0.37, and the ANTELOPE region is shown to improve sensitivity to non-SVJ benchmark signals.

Significance. If the exclusion is taken at face value, this is the first ATLAS limit on resonant semi-visible jet production and the first ATLAS search to use a semi-supervised permutation-invariant anomaly detector in a resonant hadronic final state. The analysis is carefully executed: the signal regions are blinded until the background model is validated; the CR/VR fits, Asimov pseudo-data tests, and signal-injection linearity checks are documented; and the systematics treatment includes PDF/alpha_s, generator, luminosity, jet energy scale, and spurious-signal uncertainties. The ANTELOPE comparison with alternate models (emerging jets, gluino R-hadrons) is a useful, falsifiable demonstration of model breadth. The main fragility, discussed below, is that the background closure tests never exercise the Wj2 > 0.05 SR selection.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 6, Table 2, Section 9] The CR and both VRs require Wj2 < 0.05, while either SR requires Wj2 > 0.05 and a high ML score; consequently the five-parameter functional form f(x) is validated only in the low-Wj2 phase space. The weak-correlation assumption between Wj2, ML scores, and mT is checked at preselection only, so a Wj2-dependent change in the mT shape induced by the SR cuts (for example through jet pT, track multiplicity, or E_T^miss) would not be detected by the CR/VR fits, the spurious-signal evaluation, or the signal-injection linearity tests. Because the background parameters are left free in the SR fit, such sculpting could either mimic or absorb a broad resonance and shift the claimed exclusion (mZ' 2000-3200 GeV, Rinv 0.2-0.37). I recommend adding a closure test in a Wj2 > 0.05 validation region with inverted ML scores, or a quantitative post-fit check of the Wj2/ML-score versus mT correlation after SR-like requirements.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.2] The word "metholodogy" should be "methodology".
  2. [Figure 5] The figure caption includes "CWoLa for anomaly detection" and two citations that are not discussed in the text; please remove or explain this reference.
  3. [Section 9] The sentence beginning "SRPFN Signal interpretations are extracted..." lacks proper spacing and capitalization; it should read "SRPFN signal interpretations are extracted from SRPFN only via signal-plus-background fits".
  4. [Section 5.2] The sentence "a selection of > 0.7 is imposed on the ANTELOPE score to maximally enrich the signal sensitivity for the SVJ simulated samples (defined in Section 6)" is confusing because the threshold is actually introduced here in Section 5.2; please clarify the cross-reference.
  5. [Section 6] The variable Wj2 is used in Figure 5 before its definition is given in the text; moving the definition earlier would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the result is a direct measurement of observed data with empirically validated background and signal machinery, not a derivation equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

The paper makes no first-principles derivation: the central claims are (i) no significant excess is observed, supported by direct fits of the five-parameter background function to the unblinded data in SRPFN and SRAD with fit p-values 0.26 and 0.74, and (ii) 95% CL limits obtained from signal-plus-background fits using Monte Carlo signal templates. The background function f(x) = p1(1-x)^p2 x^(p3+p4 ln x + p5 ln^2 x) is an empirical ansatz with all five parameters left free in the signal-region fit; its validation in control and validation regions and with signal injections is a modeling test, not a case where an output is defined by construction to equal an input. The PFN is supervised on SVJ signals and ANTELOPE uses the PFN latent space, but these define fixed event selections established before unblinding; the final no-excess statement comes from the observed mT data, not from the training labels. Citations to prior ATLAS analyses and the ANTELOPE methods paper supply methods and context rather than evidence for the physics result. The noted CR/VR-versus-SR difference in jet-width selection is a functional-form validation caveat relevant to correctness risk, not a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is an experimental search; its central claim of no excess does not rest on a derivation. Free parameters are the empirical background function coefficients, the fixed signal benchmark values, and the optimized selection thresholds that define the excluded model region.

free parameters (3)
  • Background fit parameters p1 through p5 = Floating in final fit to each signal region
    Parameters of the empirical function f(x)=p1(1-x)^p2 x^(p3+p4 ln x+p5 ln^2 x) fitted to the mT spectrum, used for background estimation and limit setting.
  • Dark sector benchmark model parameters (Lambda_D, m_piD, m_rhoD, m_chi, g_q, g_chi, N_cD, N_fD) = 10 GeV, 17 GeV, 31.77 GeV, 10 GeV, 1, 0.1, 3, 2
    Fixed dark-sector parameters from Snowmass benchmarks [16,54] used in Pythia Hidden Valley simulation; the exclusion contours apply to this specific model family.
  • Signal region selection thresholds (Wj2 > 0.05, PFN > 0.6, ANTELOPE > 0.7)
    Chosen by optimization over the simulated signal grid to maximize sensitivity; these thresholds define the signal regions and therefore affect the resulting limits.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The empirical functional form f(x) correctly describes the SM background mT shape in the signal regions
    Validated in CR, VR, and against Monte Carlo, but this is the principal modeling assumption of the background estimation.
  • domain assumption Pythia Hidden Valley and GEANT4 simulation reliably model the signal and multijet background for ML training
    The PFN is trained on simulated SVJ signal and multijet background; quoted data-simulation efficiency differences below 5% support this, but residual mismodeling could affect signal-region yields.
  • domain assumption The benchmark dark QCD hidden sector model is a viable BSM interpretation
    The model is adopted from Snowmass and theory references; the limits are conditional on its parameters and on the Z' production mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for new physics in final states with semi-visible jets or anomalous signatures using the ATLAS detector." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GZKBCWLE

@misc{pith2026250501634,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for new physics in final states with semi-visible jets or anomalous signatures using the ATLAS detector},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GZKBCWLE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01634}
}
abstract

A search is presented for hadronic signatures of beyond the Standard Model (BSM) physics, with an emphasis on signatures of a strongly-coupled hidden dark sector accessed via resonant production of a $Z'$ mediator. The ATLAS experiment dataset collected at the Large Hadron Collider from 2015 to 2018 is used, consisting of proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 140 fb$^{-1}$. The $Z'$ mediator is considered to decay to two dark quarks, which each hadronize and decay to showers containing both dark and Standard Model particles, producing a topology of interacting and non-interacting particles within a jet known as ``semi-visible". Machine learning methods are used to select these dark showers and reject the dominant background of mismeasured multijet events, including an anomaly detection approach to preserve broad sensitivity to a variety of BSM topologies. A resonance search is performed by fitting the transverse mass spectrum based on a functional form background estimation. No significant excess over the expected background is observed. Results are presented as limits on the production cross section of semi-visible jet signals, parameterized by the fraction of invisible particles in the decay and the $Z'$ mass, and by quantifying the significance of any generic Gaussian-shaped mass peak in the anomaly region.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Search for resonant production of lepton-enriched semivisible jets in proton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 13 TeV

    hep-ex 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A CMS search with 138 fb^-1 of 13 TeV data finds no lepton-enriched semivisible jet resonance and excludes Z' masses up to 4.7 TeV (SVJ l) and 1.8-3.5 TeV (SVJ tau) at 95% CL.

  2. Machine-learning techniques for model-independent searches in dijet final states

    hep-ex 2025-12 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Five ML anomaly-detection methods enhance model-agnostic dijet searches at CMS, and a weakly supervised tagger identifies hadronic top-quark decays in data nearly as well as a supervised classifier.

  3. Search for emerging jets in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13.6$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment

    hep-ex 2025-05 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    No evidence for emerging jets was found in 51.8 fb-1 of 13.6 TeV ATLAS data; new exclusion limits are set on s-channel Z' and t-channel scalar mediator models producing pairs of emerging jets.

  4. Classical Hardware Acceleration of Quantum Autoencoders for Real-Time Anomaly Detection in Collider Experiments

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Quantum and hybrid quantum-classical autoencoders for LHC trigger anomaly detection are quantized and synthesized onto a single FPGA SLR with claimed sub-microsecond-to-few-microsecond latency at stated parity with cl...

  5. Wasserstein normalized autoencoder for anomaly detection

    hep-ex 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Wasserstein-distance-trained normalized autoencoder detects semivisible jets in simulated LHC events with AUCs around 0.69–0.77, outperforming standard and normalized autoencoders on a ttbar background.

  6. Search for emerging jets in $pp$ collisions at $\sqrt{s} = 13$ TeV with the ATLAS experiment

    hep-ex 2025-10 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    No excess of emerging-jet events appears in ATLAS Run 2 data, excluding pair-produced dark scalar mediators up to about 2 TeV for 20 GeV dark pions with 20 mm decay length.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Persic, P

    M. Persic, P. Salucci, and F. Stel, The universal rotation curve of spiral galaxies - I. The dark matter connection, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.281(1996) 27, arXiv:astro-ph/9506004

    arXiv 1996

  2. [2]

    Clowe et al.,A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter*, Astrophys

    D. Clowe et al.,A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter*, Astrophys. J. Lett.648 (2006) L109, arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    arXiv 2006

  3. [3]

    Chang et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: curved-sky weak lensing mass map, Mon

    C. Chang et al.,Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: curved-sky weak lensing mass map, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475(2018) 3165, arXiv:1708.01535 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan,Dark Matter, 2024, arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Balazs, T

    C. Balazs, T. Bringmann, F. Kahlhoefer, and M. White,A Primer on Dark Matter, 2024, arXiv: 2411.05062 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Evans and P

    L. Evans and P. Bryant,LHC Machine, JINST3 (2008) S08001. 22

    2008

  7. [7]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest,Supersymmetric dark matter, Phys. Rept.267 (1996) 195, arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    M. J. Strassler and K. M. Zurek,Echoes of a hidden valley at hadron colliders, Phys. Lett. B651 (2007) 374, arXiv:hep-ph/0604261

    arXiv 2007

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    T. Han, Z. Si, K. M. Zurek, and M. J. Strassler, Phenomenology of hidden valleys at hadron colliders, JHEP07 (2008) 008, arXiv: 0712.2041 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Belis, P

    V. Belis, P. Odagiu, and T. K. Aarrestad, Machine learning for anomaly detection in particle physics, Rev. Phys.12 (2024) 100091, arXiv: 2312.14190 [physics.data-an]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Beauchesne, E

    H. Beauchesne, E. Bertuzzo, and G. Grilli di Cortona, Dark matter in Hidden Valley models with stable and unstable light dark mesons, JHEP04(2019) 118, arXiv:1809.10152 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bai and P

    Y. Bai and P. Schwaller,Scale of dark QCD, Phys. Rev. D89(2014) 063522, arXiv: 1306.4676 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cohen, M

    T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, and H. K. Lou,Semivisible Jets: Dark Matter Undercover at the LHC, Phys. Rev. Lett.115 (2015) 171804, arXiv:1503.00009 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. J. Strassler,On the Phenomenology of Hidden Valleys with Heavy Flavor, 2008, arXiv: 0806.2385 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Bernreuther, F

    E. Bernreuther, F. Kahlhoefer, M. Krämer, and P. Tunney, Strongly interacting dark sectors in the early Universe and at the LHC through a simplified portal, JHEP01(2020) 162, arXiv:1907.04346 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Albouy et al., Theory, phenomenology, and experimental avenues for dark showers: a Snowmass 2021 report, Eur

    G. Albouy et al., Theory, phenomenology, and experimental avenues for dark showers: a Snowmass 2021 report, Eur. Phys. J. C82(2022) 1132, arXiv:2203.09503 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Faucett, S.-C

    T. Faucett, S.-C. Hsu, and D. Whiteson,Learning to identify semi-visible jets, JHEP12 (2022) 132, arXiv: 2208.10062 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Liu and K

    B. Liu and K. Pedro,Semi-visible jets + X: illuminating dark showers with radiation, JHEP12(2024) 105, arXiv:2409.04741 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Barron, D

    J. Barron, D. Curtin, G. Kasieczka, T. Plehn, and A. Spourdalakis, Unsupervised hadronic SUEP at the LHC, JHEP12(2021) 129, arXiv:2107.12379 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Canelli et al.,Autoencoders for semivisible jet detection, JHEP02(2022) 074, arXiv: 2112.02864 [hep-ph]

    F. Canelli et al.,Autoencoders for semivisible jet detection, JHEP02(2022) 074, arXiv: 2112.02864 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Favaro, M

    L. Favaro, M. Krämer, T. Modak, T. Plehn, and J. Rüschkamp, Semi-visible jets, energy-based models, and self-supervision, SciPost Phys.18(2025) 042, arXiv: 2312.03067 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Pedro and P

    K. Pedro and P. Shyamsundar,Optimal mass variables for semivisible jets, SciPost Phys. Core6 (2023) 067, arXiv:2303.16253 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Bardhan, Y

    D. Bardhan, Y. Kats, and N. Wunch, Searching for dark jets with displaced vertices using weakly supervised machine learning, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 035036, arXiv:2305.04372 [hep-ph]. 23

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    K. Bai, R. Mastandrea, and B. Nachman, Non-resonant anomaly detection with background extrapolation, JHEP04(2024) 059, arXiv: 2311.12924 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for resonant production of dark quarks in the dijet final state with the ATLAS detector, JHEP02(2024) 128, arXiv:2311.03944 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for non-resonant production of semi-visible jets using Run 2 data in ATLAS, Phys. Lett. B848 (2024) 138324, arXiv:2305.18037 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for dark mesons decaying to top and bottom quarks in proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, JHEP09 (2024) 005, arXiv: 2405.20061 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for emerging jets in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13.6 TeV with the ATLAS experiment, CERN-EP-2025-099, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    CMS Collaboration, Searchforresonantproductionofstronglycoupleddarkmatterinproton-protoncollisionsat13TeV , JHEP6(2022) 156, arXiv:2112.11125 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for new particles decaying to a jet and an emerging jet, JHEP02(2019) 179, arXiv:1810.10069 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    CMS Collaboration, Search for dark QCD with emerging jets in proton-proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13 TeV, JHEP07(2024) 142, arXiv:2403.01556 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kasieczka et al., The LHC Olympics 2020 a community challenge for anomaly detection in high energy physics, Rept

    G. Kasieczka et al., The LHC Olympics 2020 a community challenge for anomaly detection in high energy physics, Rept. Prog. Phys.84 (2021) 124201, arXiv:2101.08320 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    T. Aarrestad et al.,The Dark Machines Anomaly Score Challenge: Benchmark Data and Model Independent Event Classification for the Large Hadron Collider, SciPost Phys.12(2022) 043, arXiv: 2105.14027 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    CMS Collaboration,Model-agnostic search for dijet resonances with anomalous jet substructure in proton-proton collisions at√𝑠 = 13 TeV, 2024, arXiv:2412.03747 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Dijet Resonance Search with Weak Supervision Using√𝑠= 13TeV𝑝𝑝 Collisions in the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.125 (2020) 131801, arXiv: 2005.02983 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Anomaly detection search for new resonances decaying into a Higgs boson and a generic new particle𝑋 in hadronic final states using√𝑠= 13TeV𝑝𝑝 collisions with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Rev. D108 (2023) 052009, arXiv:2306.03637 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for New Phenomena in Two-Body Invariant Mass Distributions Using Unsupervised Machine Learning for Anomaly Detection at√𝑠= 13 TeV with the ATLAS Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.132 (2024) 081801, arXiv:2307.01612 [hep-ex]. 24

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Weakly supervised anomaly detection for resonant new physics in the dijet final state using proton-proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, 2025, arXiv: 2502.09770 [hep-ex]

    2025

  31. [39]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider, JINST3 (2008) S08003

    2008

  32. [40]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Insertable B-Layer: Technical Design Report, ATLAS-TDR-19; CERN-LHCC-2010-013, 2010, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1291633, Addendum: ATLAS-TDR-19-ADD-1; CERN-LHCC-2012-009, 2012,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1451888

    2010

  33. [41]

    Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Abbott et al.,Production and integration of the ATLAS Insertable B-Layer, JINST13(2018) T05008, arXiv:1803.00844 [physics.ins-det]

    2018 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13 (2018) P07017

    G. Avoni et al.,The new LUCID-2 detector for luminosity measurement and monitoring in ATLAS, JINST13 (2018) P07017

    2018

  35. [43]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Performance of the ATLAS trigger system in 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 317, arXiv:1611.09661 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Software and computing for Run 3 of the ATLAS experiment at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C85(2025) 234, arXiv:2404.06335 [hep-ex]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Luminosity determination in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV using the ATLAS detector at the LHC, Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 982, arXiv:2212.09379 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    ATLAS Collaboration,ATLAS data quality operations and performance for 2015–2018 data-taking, JINST15 (2020) P04003, arXiv:1911.04632 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The ATLAS Simulation Infrastructure, Eur. Phys. J. C70(2010) 823, arXiv: 1005.4568 [physics.ins-det]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Agostinelli et al.,Geant4 – a simulation toolkit, Nucl

    S. Agostinelli et al.,Geant4 – a simulation toolkit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A506 (2003) 250

    2003

  41. [49]

    J. Alwall 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, arXiv: 1405.0301 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput

    T. Sjöstrand et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159, arXiv: 1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Lavesson and L

    N. Lavesson and L. Lönnblad,Merging parton showers and matrix elements—back to basics, JHEP04(2008) 085, arXiv:0712.2966 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J

    J. Butterworth et al.,PDF4LHC recommendations for LHC Run II, J. Phys. G43(2016) 023001, arXiv: 1510.03865 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Pythia 8 tunes to7TeV data, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2014-021, 2014, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/1966419

    2014

  46. [54]

    Cohen, M

    T. Cohen, M. Lisanti, H. K. Lou, and S. Mishra-Sharma,LHC searches for dark sector showers, JHEP11(2017) 196, arXiv:1707.05326 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Arvanitaki, N

    A. Arvanitaki, N. Craig, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Villadoro,Mini-Split, JHEP02 (2013) 126, arXiv: 1210.0555 [hep-ph]. 25

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,The anti-𝑘𝑡 jet clustering algorithm, JHEP04(2008) 063, arXiv: 0802.1189 [hep-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Cacciari, G

    M. Cacciari, G. P. Salam, and G. Soyez,FastJet user manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72(2012) 1896, arXiv: 1111.6097 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Topological cell clustering in the ATLAS calorimeters and its performance in LHC Run 1, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 490, arXiv:1603.02934 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [59]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet reconstruction and performance using particle flow with the ATLAS Detector, Eur. Phys. J. C77(2017) 466, arXiv:1703.10485 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy scale and resolution measured in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 689, arXiv: 2007.02645 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Performance of jet substructure techniques for large-𝑅 jets in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 7TeV using the ATLAS detector, JHEP09 (2013) 076, arXiv: 1306.4945 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Electron and photon performance measurements with the ATLAS detector using the 2015–2017 LHC proton–proton collision data, JINST14(2019) P12006, arXiv: 1908.00005 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Muon reconstruction and identification efficiency in ATLAS using the full Run 2𝑝𝑝 collision data set at√𝑠= 13TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C81(2021) 578, arXiv: 2012.00578 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    ATLAS Collaboration, The performance of missing transverse momentum reconstruction and its significance with the ATLAS detector using140fb−1 of√𝑠= 13TeV𝑝𝑝 collisions, (2024), arXiv: 2402.05858 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. T. Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler,Energy flow networks: deep sets for particle jets, JHEP01(2019) 121, arXiv:1810.05165 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Zaheer et al.,Deep Sets, 2018, arXiv:1703.06114 [cs.LG]

    M. Zaheer et al.,Deep Sets, 2018, arXiv:1703.06114 [cs.LG]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Deep Sparse Rectifier Neural Networks,

    X. Glorot, A. Bordes, and Y. Bengio, “Deep Sparse Rectifier Neural Networks,” Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, ed. by G. Gordon, D. Dunson, and M. Dudík, vol. 15, Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Fort La...

    2011

  60. [68]

    C. M. Bishop,Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning (Information Science and Statistics), Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006

    2006

  61. [69]

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba,Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization, 2017, arXiv: 1412.6980 [cs.LG]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Matos, E

    G. Matos, E. Busch, K. R. Park, and J. Gonski, Semi-supervised permutation invariant particle-level anomaly detection, 2024, arXiv: 2408.17409 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    D. P. Kingma and M. Welling,Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes, (2022), arXiv: 1312.6114 [stat.ML]. 26

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Vertex Reconstruction Performance of the ATLAS Detector at√𝑠= 13 TeV, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2015-026, 2015,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037717

    2015

  65. [73]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Selection of jets produced in13 TeV proton–proton collisions with the ATLAS detector, ATLAS-CONF-2015-029, 2015,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2037702

    2015

  66. [74]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Jet energy measurement with the ATLAS detector in proton–proton collisions at√𝑠= 7TeV, Eur. Phys. J. C73(2013) 2304, arXiv:1112.6426 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [75]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Search for dijet resonances in events with an isolated charged lepton using√𝑠= 13TeV proton–proton collision data collected by the ATLAS detector, JHEP06(2020) 151, arXiv: 2002.11325 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  68. [76]

    ATLAS Collaboration,Search for low-mass dijet resonances using trigger-level jets with the ATLAS detector in𝑝𝑝 collisions at√𝑠= 13TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett.121 (2018) 081801, arXiv: 1804.03496 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Edgar, D

    R. Edgar, D. Amidei, C. Grud, and K. Sekhon, Functional Decomposition: A new method for search and limit setting, 2018, arXiv: 1805.04536 [physics.data-an]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Recommendations for the Modeling of Smooth Backgrounds, ATL-PHYS-PUB-2020-028, 2020,url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2743717

    2020

  71. [79]

    Choudalakis, On hypothesis testing, trials factor, hypertests and the BumpHunter, 2011, arXiv: 1101.0390 [physics.data-an]

    G. Choudalakis, On hypothesis testing, trials factor, hypertests and the BumpHunter, 2011, arXiv: 1101.0390 [physics.data-an]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [80]

    A. L. Read,Presentation of search results: the𝐶𝐿𝑠 technique, J. Phys. G28 (2002) 2693

    2002

  73. [81]

    Demokritos

    ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS Computing Acknowledgements, ATL-SOFT-PUB-2025-001, 2025, url: https://cds.cern.ch/record/2922210. 27 The ATLAS Collaboration G. Aad 104, E. Aakvaag 17, B. Abbott 123, S. Abdelhameed 119a, K. Abeling 55, N.J. Abicht 49, S.H. Abidi 30, M. Aboelela 45, ...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.