Model-Independent Detection of New Physics Signals Using Interpretable Semi-Supervised Classifier Tests

A central goal in experimental high energy physics is to detect new physics signals that are not explained by known physics. In this paper, we aim to search for new signals that appear as deviations from known Standard Model physics in high-dimensional particle physics data. To do this, we determine whether there is any statistically significant difference between the distribution of Standard Model background samples and the distribution of the experimental observations, which are a mixture of the background and a potential new signal. Traditionally, one also assumes access to a sample from a model for the hypothesized signal distribution. Here we instead investigate a model-independent method that does not make any assumptions about the signal and uses a semi-supervised classifier to detect the presence of the signal in the experimental data. We construct three test statistics using the classifier: an estimated likelihood ratio test (LRT) statistic, a test based on the area under the ROC curve (AUC), and a test based on the misclassification error (MCE). Additionally, we propose a method for estimating the signal strength parameter and explore active subspace methods to interpret the proposed semi-supervised classifier in order to understand the properties of the detected signal. We investigate the performance of the methods on a data set related to the search for the Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. We demonstrate that the semi-supervised tests have power competitive with the classical supervised methods for a well-specified signal, but much higher power for an unexpected signal which might be entirely missed by the supervised tests.

[1]  M. Kenward,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 2007 .

[2]  P. Sen,et al.  On the asymptotic performance of the log likelihood ratio statistic for the mixture model and related results , 1984 .

[3]  Ivan Oseledets,et al.  Active Subspace of Neural Networks: Structural Analysis and Universal Attacks , 2020, SIAM J. Math. Data Sci..

[4]  Paul G. Constantine,et al.  Active Subspaces - Emerging Ideas for Dimension Reduction in Parameter Studies , 2015, SIAM spotlights.

[5]  R. D’Agnolo,et al.  Learning new physics from a machine , 2018, Physical Review D.

[6]  B. Lindsay,et al.  The distribution of the likelihood ratio for mixtures of densities from the one-parameter exponential family , 1994 .

[7]  Marco Cuturi,et al.  Computational Optimal Transport: With Applications to Data Science , 2019 .

[8]  Ankur Taly,et al.  Axiomatic Attribution for Deep Networks , 2017, ICML.

[9]  B. Nachman,et al.  Anomaly detection with density estimation , 2020, Physical Review D.

[10]  David Shih,et al.  Simulation assisted likelihood-free anomaly detection , 2020 .

[11]  A General search for new phenomena in ep scattering at HERA , 2004 .

[12]  Alessandro Rinaldo,et al.  Distribution-Free Predictive Inference for Regression , 2016, Journal of the American Statistical Association.

[13]  B. Kégl,et al.  The ATLAS Higgs Boson Machine Learning Challenge , 2014 .

[14]  P. Bhat Multivariate Analysis Methods in Particle Physics , 2011 .

[15]  John Maindonald,et al.  Data Analysis and Graphics Using R: An Example-based Approach (Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilistic Mathematics) , 2003 .

[16]  C. Metz Basic principles of ROC analysis. , 1978, Seminars in nuclear medicine.

[17]  R. Newcombe,et al.  Confidence intervals for an effect size measure based on the Mann–Whitney statistic. Part 1: general issues and tail‐area‐based methods , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  H. Ishwaran Variable importance in binary regression trees and forests , 2007, 0711.2434.

[19]  J. Hanley Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. , 1989, Critical reviews in diagnostic imaging.

[20]  B. Nachman,et al.  Anomaly Detection for Resonant New Physics with Machine Learning. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[21]  Kyle Cranmer,et al.  Practical Statistics for the LHC , 2014, 1503.07622.

[22]  Kazuhiro Terao,et al.  Machine learning at the energy and intensity frontiers of particle physics , 2018, Nature.

[23]  Achim Zeileis,et al.  BMC Bioinformatics BioMed Central Methodology article Conditional variable importance for random forests , 2008 .

[24]  Tapani Raiko,et al.  Semi-supervised detection of collective anomalies with an application in high energy particle physics , 2012, The 2012 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

[25]  E. al.,et al.  Global search for new physics with 2.0 fb(-1) at CDF , 2008, 0809.3781.

[26]  Denis Perret-Gallix,et al.  New computing techniques in physics research : proceedings of the First International Workshop on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems in High Energy and Nuclear Physics : March 19-24, 1990, Centre de Calcul de l'IN[2]P[3], Lyon Villeurbanne (France) , 1990 .

[27]  Thomas Hebbeker,et al.  MUSiC: A Model Unspecific Search for New Physics Based on $\sqrt{s}=8\,\text{TeV}$ CMS Data , 2017 .

[28]  VARUN CHANDOLA,et al.  Anomaly detection: A survey , 2009, CSUR.

[29]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  Approximating Likelihood Ratios with Calibrated Discriminative Classifiers , 2015, 1506.02169.

[30]  J. Hanley,et al.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. , 1982, Radiology.

[31]  Larry A. Wasserman,et al.  Classification Accuracy as a Proxy for Two Sample Testing , 2016, The Annals of Statistics.

[32]  Rolf-Dieter Reiss,et al.  A Course on Point Processes , 1992 .

[33]  Charanjit K. Khosa,et al.  The LHC Olympics 2020 a community challenge for anomaly detection in high energy physics , 2021, Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society.

[34]  Balázs Kégl,et al.  The Higgs boson machine learning challenge , 2014, HEPML@NIPS.

[35]  G. Menardi,et al.  Nonparametric semi-supervised classification with application to signal detection in high energy physics , 2021, Statistical Methods & Applications.

[36]  Brian D. Williamson,et al.  A unified approach for inference on algorithm-agnostic variable importance , 2020 .

[37]  P. D. Dauncey,et al.  Handling uncertainties in background shapes: the discrete profiling method , 2014, 1408.6865.

[38]  Tapani Raiko,et al.  Semi-supervised anomaly detection – towards model-independent searches of new physics , 2011, 1112.3329.

[39]  M. Schilling Multivariate Two-Sample Tests Based on Nearest Neighbors , 1986 .

[40]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[41]  The Cms Collaboration Observation of a new boson at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the LHC , 2012, 1207.7235.

[42]  Ann B. Lee,et al.  Global and local two-sample tests via regression , 2018, Electronic Journal of Statistics.

[43]  N. Henze A MULTIVARIATE TWO-SAMPLE TEST BASED ON THE NUMBER OF NEAREST NEIGHBOR TYPE COINCIDENCES , 1988 .

[44]  U. Grömping Dependence of Variable Importance in Random Forests on the Shape of the Regressor Space , 2009 .

[45]  John D. Storey A direct approach to false discovery rates , 2002 .

[46]  J. Caudron,et al.  A strategy for a general search for new phenomena using data-derived signal regions and its application within the ATLAS experiment , 2018, 1807.07447.

[47]  Gregory Schott,et al.  Data Analysis in High Energy Physics: A Practical Guide to Statistical Methods , 2013 .

[48]  Qiqi Wang,et al.  Erratum: Active Subspace Methods in Theory and Practice: Applications to Kriging Surfaces , 2013, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[49]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[50]  Johan Larsson,et al.  Exploiting active subspaces to quantify uncertainty in the numerical simulation of the HyShot II scramjet , 2014, J. Comput. Phys..

[51]  Hayes,et al.  Review of Particle Physics. , 1996, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[52]  M. J. Laan Statistical Inference for Variable Importance , 2006 .

[53]  Alexander Binder,et al.  On Pixel-Wise Explanations for Non-Linear Classifier Decisions by Layer-Wise Relevance Propagation , 2015, PloS one.

[54]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models , 2002, Technometrics.

[55]  Trevor Hastie,et al.  The elements of statistical learning. 2001 , 2001 .

[56]  Avanti Shrikumar,et al.  Learning Important Features Through Propagating Activation Differences , 2017, ICML.

[57]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Generative Adversarial Nets , 2014, NIPS.

[58]  M. Pierini,et al.  Learning multivariate new physics , 2019, The European Physical Journal C.

[59]  B. Nachman,et al.  Extending the search for new resonances with machine learning , 2019, Physical Review D.

[60]  R. Newcombe,et al.  Confidence intervals for an effect size measure based on the Mann–Whitney statistic. Part 2: asymptotic methods and evaluation , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[61]  K. Cranmer,et al.  Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics , 2010, 1007.1727.