SciPost Submission Page

How to GAN away Detector Effects

by Marco Bellagente, Anja Butter, Gregor Kasieczka, Tilman Plehn, Ramon Winterhalder

Submission summary

As Contributors: Tilman Plehn · Ramon Winterhalder
Arxiv Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.00477v4 (pdf)
Date accepted: 2020-04-17
Date submitted: 2020-03-19
Submitted by: Winterhalder, Ramon
Submitted to: SciPost Physics
Discipline: Physics
Subject area: High-Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Approaches: Theoretical, Computational

Abstract

LHC analyses directly comparing data and simulated events bear the danger of using first-principle predictions only as a black-box part of event simulation. We show how simulations, for instance, of detector effects can instead be inverted using generative networks. This allows us to reconstruct parton level information from measured events. Our results illustrate how, in general, fully conditional generative networks can statistically invert Monte Carlo simulations. As a technical by-product we show how a maximum mean discrepancy loss can be staggered or cooled.

Ontology / Topics

See full Ontology or Topics database.

Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Monte-Carlo simulations

Published as SciPost Phys. 8, 070 (2020)




Reports on this Submission

Anonymous Report 2 on 2020-4-11 Invited Report

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1912.00477v4, delivered 2020-04-11, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1620

Report

I am satisfied with authors replies to my previous comments.
The paper overall has improved (also thanks to other referees comments) and I think it is already in good shape to be published.
I appreciated in particular the new section 4 "New physics injection": it is not mandatory, but if there will be a new submission, I think it would be nice to see also the detector distributions in Figure 10 (in particular I am interested to see it for m_lljj, where I wonder if the unfolded new resonance, without additional constraints, improves its significance over the detector level one).
The hyperlink is missing in Ref 23: G. Cowan, Conf. Proc. C0203181 (2002) 248. [,248(2002)]
(also "[,248(2002)]" should not appear)

Many congratulations to the authors for this very nice and inspiring work.

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Anonymous Report 1 on 2020-3-29 Invited Report

  • Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:1912.00477v4, delivered 2020-03-29, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.1599

Report

I'd like to thank the authors for their responses and the clarifications in the revised version. I appreciate the extra test of the robustness of the method in the presence of signatures that are significantly different from the Standard Model. I think that makes for a nice addition to the paper.

  • validity: -
  • significance: -
  • originality: -
  • clarity: -
  • formatting: -
  • grammar: -

Login to report or comment