Learning new physics from a machine

We propose using neural networks to detect data departures from a given reference model, with no prior bias on the nature of the new physics responsible for the discrepancy. The virtues of neural networks as unbiased function approximants make them particularly suited for this task. An algorithm that implements this idea is constructed, as a straightforward application of the likelihood-ratio hypothesis test. The algorithm compares observations with an auxiliary set of reference-distributed events, possibly obtained with a Monte Carlo event generator. It returns a $p$ value, which measures the compatibility of the reference model with the data. It also identifies the most discrepant phase-space region of the data set, to be selected for further investigation. The most interesting potential applications are model-independent new physics searches, although our approach could also be used to compare the theoretical predictions of different Monte Carlo event generators, or for data validation algorithms. In this work we study the performance of our algorithm on a few simple examples. The results confirm the model independence of the approach, namely that it displays good sensitivity to a variety of putative signals. Furthermore, we show that the reach does not depend much on whether a favorable signal region is selected based on prior expectations. We identify directions for improvement towards applications to real experimental data sets.

[1]  Benjamin Philip Nachman,et al.  CWoLa Hunting: Extending the Bump Hunt with Machine Learning , 2018 .

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

[3]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  Mining gold from implicit models to improve likelihood-free inference , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[4]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  Constraining Effective Field Theories with Machine Learning. , 2018, Physical review letters.

[5]  Gilles Louppe,et al.  A guide to constraining effective field theories with machine learning , 2018, Physical Review D.

[6]  C. Frye,et al.  JUNIPR: a framework for unsupervised machine learning in particle physics , 2018, The European Physical Journal C.

[7]  M. Reece,et al.  Opening the black box of neural nets: case studies in stop/top discrimination , 2018, 1804.09278.

[8]  M. Schwartz,et al.  Jet charge and machine learning , 2018, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[9]  Vijayan K. Asari,et al.  The History Began from AlexNet: A Comprehensive Survey on Deep Learning Approaches , 2018, ArXiv.

[10]  D. Shih,et al.  Pulling out all the tops with computer vision and deep learning , 2018, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[11]  Qiang Du,et al.  Deep ReLU networks lessen the curse of dimensionality , 2017 .

[12]  Hadrien Montanelli,et al.  New error bounds for deep networks using sparse grids. , 2017 .

[13]  Michela Paganini,et al.  CaloGAN: Simulating 3D High Energy Particle Showers in Multi-Layer Electromagnetic Calorimeters with Generative Adversarial Networks , 2017, ArXiv.

[14]  Michela Paganini,et al.  Controlling Physical Attributes in GAN-Accelerated Simulation of Electromagnetic Calorimeters , 2017, Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

[15]  A. Larkoski,et al.  Novel jet observables from machine learning , 2017, 1710.01305.

[16]  B. Ostdiek,et al.  What is the Machine Learning , 2017, 1709.10106.

[17]  B. Nachman,et al.  Jet substructure at the Large Hadron Collider: A review of recent advances in theory and machine learning , 2017, Physics Reports.

[18]  Gregor Kasieczka,et al.  Deep-learned Top Tagging with a Lorentz Layer , 2017, SciPost Physics.

[19]  Tatsumi Nitta,et al.  Identification of Hadronically-Decaying W Boson Top Quarks Using High-Level Features as Input to Boosted Decision Trees and Deep Neural Networks in ATLAS at #sqrt{s} = 13 TeV , 2017 .

[20]  M. Buckley,et al.  Digging deeper for new physics in the LHC data , 2017, 1707.05783.

[21]  M. Freytsis,et al.  (Machine) learning to do more with less , 2017, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[22]  Zihao Jiang,et al.  Identification of Jets Containing b-Hadrons with Recurrent Neural Networks at the ATLAS Experiment , 2017 .

[23]  Benjamin Nachman,et al.  Accelerating Science with Generative Adversarial Networks: An Application to 3D Particle Showers in Multilayer Calorimeters. , 2017, Physical review letters.

[24]  A. Larkoski,et al.  How much information is in a jet? , 2017, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[25]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Decorrelated jet substructure tagging using adversarial neural networks , 2017, Physical Review D.

[26]  Kyunghyun Cho,et al.  QCD-aware recursive neural networks for jet physics , 2017, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[27]  G. Kasieczka,et al.  Deep-learning top taggers or the end of QCD? , 2017, 1701.08784.

[28]  Lorenzo Rosasco,et al.  Why and when can deep-but not shallow-networks avoid the curse of dimensionality: A review , 2016, International Journal of Automation and Computing.

[29]  Luke de Oliveira,et al.  Boosted Jet Tagging with Jet-Images and Deep Neural Networks , 2016 .

[30]  R. Srikant,et al.  Why Deep Neural Networks for Function Approximation? , 2016, ICLR.

[31]  Luke de Oliveira,et al.  Image Processing, Computer Vision, and Deep Learning: new approaches to the analysis and physics interpretation of LHC events , 2016, Journal of Physics: Conference Series.

[32]  E. Dawe,et al.  Parton Shower Uncertainties in Jet Substructure Analyses with Deep Neural Networks , 2016, 1609.00607.

[33]  P. Baldi,et al.  Jet flavor classification in high-energy physics with deep neural networks , 2016, 1607.08633.

[34]  P. Baldi,et al.  Jet Substructure Classification in High-Energy Physics with Deep Neural Networks , 2016, 1603.09349.

[35]  Pierre Baldi,et al.  Parameterized neural networks for high-energy physics , 2016, The European Physical Journal C.

[36]  Luke de Oliveira,et al.  Jet-images — deep learning edition , 2015, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[37]  Song Han,et al.  Deep Compression: Compressing Deep Neural Network with Pruning, Trained Quantization and Huffman Coding , 2015, ICLR.

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

[39]  J. Latorre,et al.  Parton distributions for the LHC run II , 2015, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[40]  Leandro Giordano Almeida,et al.  Playing tag with ANN: boosted top identification with pattern recognition , 2015, 1501.05968.

[41]  Francis R. Bach,et al.  Breaking the Curse of Dimensionality with Convex Neural Networks , 2014, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[42]  J. Latorre,et al.  Parton distributions for the LHC run II , 2014, 1410.8849.

[43]  K. Cranmer,et al.  Erratum to: Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics , 2013 .

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

[45]  Georgios Choudalakis,et al.  On hypothesis testing, trials factor, hypertests and the BumpHunter , 2011, 1101.0390.

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

[47]  A. Meyer MUSiC—An Automated Scan for Deviations between Data and Monte Carlo Simulation , 2010 .

[48]  H. Collaboration,et al.  A General Search for New Phenomena at HERA , 2009, 0901.0507.

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

[50]  D. Whiteson,et al.  Model-independent and quasi-model-independent search for new physics at CDF , 2008 .

[51]  C. Collaboration,et al.  Model-Independent and Quasi-Model-Independent Search for New Physics at CDF , 2007, 0712.1311.

[52]  Nasser M. Nasrabadi,et al.  Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2006, Technometrics.

[53]  H. Collaboration A general search for new phenomena in ep scattering at HERA , 2004, hep-ex/0408044.

[54]  Wolfgang A. Rolke,et al.  Limits and confidence intervals in the presence of nuisance parameters , 2004, physics/0403059.

[55]  M. Wessels,et al.  General search for new phenomena in ep scattering at HERA , 2004, 0705.3721.

[56]  L. Garrido,et al.  Neural network parametrization of deep inelastic structure functions , 2002, hep-ph/0204232.

[57]  Alan D. Martin,et al.  Review of Particle Physics , 2000, Physical Review D.

[58]  D0 Collaboration Quasi-model-independent search for new physics at large transverse momentum , 2000, hep-ex/0011067.

[59]  B. Knuteson Sleuth: A quasi-model-independent search strategy for new physics , 2000, hep-ex/0105027.

[60]  W. Jason Owen,et al.  Statistical Data Analysis , 2000, Technometrics.

[61]  D. Signorini,et al.  Neural networks , 1995, The Lancet.

[62]  Vladik Kreinovich,et al.  Arbitrary nonlinearity is sufficient to represent all functions by neural networks: A theorem , 1991, Neural Networks.

[63]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Approximation capabilities of multilayer feedforward networks , 1991, Neural Networks.

[64]  George Cybenko,et al.  Approximation by superpositions of a sigmoidal function , 1989, Math. Control. Signals Syst..

[65]  Kurt Hornik,et al.  Multilayer feedforward networks are universal approximators , 1989, Neural Networks.

[66]  A. Wald Tests of statistical hypotheses concerning several parameters when the number of observations is large , 1943 .

[67]  S. S. Wilks The Large-Sample Distribution of the Likelihood Ratio for Testing Composite Hypotheses , 1938 .

[68]  E.E. Pissaloux,et al.  Image Processing , 1994, Proceedings. Second Euromicro Workshop on Parallel and Distributed Processing.

[69]  E. S. Pearson,et al.  On the Problem of the Most Efficient Tests of Statistical Hypotheses , 1933 .

[70]  Albert Y. Kim,et al.  Hypothesis Testing , 2019, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology.

[71]  Review of Multibody Charm Analyses. , 2022 .

[72]  and as an in , 2022 .