Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Analysis-ready Generative Unfolding

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that generative unfolding can be made analysis-ready by adding background, acceptance, and efficiency corrections, reaching percent-level agreement with truth on unbinned, high-dimensional examples.

desk verdict Useful integration of background, acceptance, and efficiency into generative unfolding, but the analysis-ready claim is undercut by a prior-dependent acceptance correction that the benchmark sidesteps. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.02708 v1 pith:WJMLIHJ2 submitted 2025-09-02 hep-ph hep-ex

Anja Butter , Nathan Huetsch , Vinicius Mikuni , Benjamin Nachman , Sofia Palacios Schweitzer This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords unfoldinggenerativemachinelearningunbinneddifferentialcrosssectionsbackgroundsubtractionacceptancecorrectionefficiencyiterativeflowmatching
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

Unfolding is the statistical removal of detector effects from particle-collision data, and machine-learning versions do it unbinned and in many dimensions. Until now, most of those methods corrected detector resolution only, leaving background contamination, events that appear at detector level but fall outside the measured fiducial region (acceptance/fakes), and events that belong in the region but are not reconstructed (efficiency/misses) untreated. This paper claims to close that gap with two iterative pipelines, GenFoldC and GenFoldG, that fold all of these effects into one generative unfolding procedure. In a Gaussian toy model and in a six-dimensional simulated Z+jets sample with about 8% background, both methods recover the true particle-level distribution to percent-level agreement after five to ten iterations. If correct, this makes generative unfolding usable for realistic, unbinned differential cross-section measurements rather than a resolution-only proof of concept.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the iterative reweighting identity that turns a classifier into a density-ratio update. After one unfolding pass, a classifier separating the current unfolded distribution from the simulation prior yields weights $w(y)=\nu(y)\,\delta(y)\,p_{d,s}(y)/p_{MC,s}(y)_r=E(y)/(1-E(y))$, which define the joint training samples for the next iteration. GenFoldC finishes with the efficiency-corrected product above; GenFoldG instead replaces weighted updates with generative draws, injecting 'empty events' to mimic events lost to acceptance or efficiency while keeping the detector response $p(x|y)$ fixed and updating only the particle-level density. Acceptance and efficiency corrections are themselves classifier-estimated ratios: $\delta(x)$ for the fraction of reconstructed events inside the fiducial region, and $\epsilon(y)$ for the fraction of fiducial events that get reconstructed. The generative backbone is conditional flow matching, and the same correction steps can be implemented with classifiers or generators independently.

What would settle it

A concrete falsifier: generate pseudo-data with a detector response or shower model different from the one used to train the pipeline, without reweighting the generator-level spectra, and check whether the unfolded distribution still matches truth at the percent level; the paper itself shows the failure mode in Appendix A, where a fiducial cut on the unfolded observable makes the acceptance classifier mismodel the edge.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the standard generative-unfolding loop—learn the conditional density $p_{MC,s}(y|x)$ from paired simulation, apply it to data, then iterate to remove the simulation prior—can be extended into a complete measurement pipeline without leaving the unbinned setting. The five steps are: subtract background by reweighting or generating the signal density; correct acceptance with a classifier that estimates the conditional probability that a reconstructed event lies in the fiducial region; unfold the resolution effects; iterate to remove prior dependence, either by classifier reweighting (GenFoldC) or by regenerating weighted pairs (GenFoldG); and correct efficiency with a reciprocal classifier weight or with empty events. The final GenFoldC distribution is $p_{\mathrm{GenFoldC}}(y)=\epsilon(y)\,\delta(y)\,p^n_{d,\mathrm{unfold}}(y)_r$, while GenFoldG produces unweighted events approximating $p_{d,s}(y)$. In the Gaussian example and the six-observable Z+jets benchmark with 8% background and small acceptance and efficiency losses, both variants match the truth at the percent level, with residual distortions concentrated at extreme values of the N-subjettiness ratio and groomed mass and attributed to residual prior dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulation used for training describes the detector for the real data: the estimated background is correct, the detector treats data and simulation events the same way, and the acceptance and efficiency rates learned from simulation apply to data unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Differential cross sections can be reported unbinned and in many dimensions with background, acceptance, and efficiency handled inside the unfolding itself, so observables and fiducial selections can be chosen after the measurement.
  • Iteration reduces the dependence on the starting simulation: both variants converge toward the data distribution rather than the simulation prior, with closure confirmed when unfolding the reference simulation itself.
  • The choice of classifier-based or generator-based corrections can be made independently for each pipeline step, so the same framework accommodates different generative models and classifier backends.
  • Residual differences remain in extreme phase-space regions, such as the high-mass tail and extreme values of the N-subjettiness ratio and groomed mass; in practice these become a systematic uncertainty on the method.
  • When a fiducial cut acts directly on the unfolded observable, the learned acceptance correction mismodels the boundary, so the paper's recommended recipe is to unfold with sidebands and apply the gen-level selection as the last step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper's demonstrations, the sideband prescription suggests a general rule for unbinned analyses: apply a learned acceptance correction only to selections that are genuinely detector-mediated, and enforce any selection that commutes with the detector response as a final cut on unfolded events.
  • The empty-event construction used by GenFoldG may transfer to full-event, variable-length unfolding, where lost particles could be represented as empty slots; this would let acceptance and efficiency corrections reach event-level observables without binning.
  • Because the acceptance classifier output is a smooth function of the reconstructed features, one could extend the method to report fiducial cross sections for a continuous family of selection thresholds from a single unfolding run, avoiding retraining for each cut.
  • The observed instability of the background classifier in high-dimensional, clustered phase space suggests that for dense backgrounds, generator-based subtraction or positive-weight refinement may be more robust; a head-to-head stability comparison on the same sample would test that.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper extends iterative generative ML unfolding to include background subtraction, acceptance correction, efficiency correction, and prior-simulation dependence removal. It proposes two algorithms: GenFoldC, which combines a generative unfolding model with classifier-based iterative reweighting, and GenFoldG, which uses generative models throughout with an empty-event mechanism. The methods are demonstrated on a Gaussian toy example and on a six-dimensional Z+jets benchmark built from the OmniFold dataset, with percent-level agreement reported after iteration. The paper also includes appendices on prior-dependent acceptance effects, different forward mappings, and hyperparameters.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a timely and useful contribution to unbinned, high-dimensional unfolding: it addresses effects that most generative unfolding papers omit and provides two complementary iterative schemes. The strengths of the paper include explicit pseudo-code for every step, closure tests on a Gaussian example with a genuinely shifted prior, a 6D physics benchmark with background, and an honest Appendix A that demonstrates a failure mode of the acceptance correction. The main gap is that the abstract and conclusion claim the methods 'are able to accommodate all effects,' while the validation deliberately avoids the realistic case where acceptance or detector response depends on a prior that differs between simulation and data.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, App. A, Sec. 4] The acceptance correction in Eq. (2.5) replaces the data-level quantity p_d,s(g|x) with the simulation-level ratio p(g)p_MC,s(x)_g / [p(g)p_MC,s(x)_g + p(\bar g)p_MC,s(x)_\bar g], so it approximates p_MC,s(g|x), not p_d,s(g|x), whenever the gen-level prior differs between data and simulation. Neither Algorithm 5 nor Algorithm 6 retrains the acceptance classifier during the iterative prior-removal procedure. The paper itself demonstrates the resulting failure in Appendix A, where a cut on the unfolded observable causes edge mismodeling. In the physics benchmark, the issue is avoided by replacing the Herwig pseudo-data with reweighted Pythia, forcing the gen-level distributions of simulation and data to agree. The abstract and conclusion therefore overstate the claim that GenFoldC and GenFoldG 'are able to accommodate all effects'; this is established only when the simulation prior coincides with the data prior. I recommend either retraining \delta(x) with the iterated unfolded weights, adopting the sideband solution from Appendix A as part of the main algorithms, or explicitly scoping the claim.
  2. [Algorithm 1 and Eq. (2.1)] As printed, Algorithm 1 assigns label 1 to both {x_d} and {x_MC,b} and label 0 to {x_d}, so the two training classes overlap and the stated likelihood-ratio relation \nu(x) = C(x)/(1-C(x)) does not follow. This makes the central background-subtraction step ill-defined. Please correct the algorithm statement (presumably labels 1 for x_d and 0 for x_MC,b, or the reverse) and reconcile Eq. (2.1) with the actual class definitions and balanced-training procedure.
  3. [Sec. 4 and App. B] The main physics benchmark removes differences in the forward mapping by replacing the Herwig pseudo-data with reweighted Pythia 'to more easily facilitate comparisons between methods' (p. 11). As the authors note, even with the same detector simulation the detector response is not universal when higher-level observables are considered. The benchmark therefore does not exercise the pipeline under a genuinely mismatched forward model or a prior shift, which is a load-bearing limitation for the 'analysis-ready' claim. I suggest adding a stress test with an un-reweighted Herwig pseudo-data set, or explicitly listing non-universal detector response as an unvalidated systematic.
  4. [Figures 4, 5, 9, 11] No statistical uncertainties are shown on any unfolded distribution, so the 'percent-level agreement' is not quantified. Because the iterative procedures involve stochastic training and finite Monte Carlo samples, bootstrap or seed-level bands are needed to support the central claim and to determine whether the residual differences at extreme values of \tau_{21} and \log\rho are significant.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Algorithm 2] There is a typo in the required data line: 'background samples samples x_{MC,b}' should read 'background samples x_{MC,b}'.
  2. [Fig. 3] The right panel legend is hard to parse because 'p_{d,s}(x)' and 'p_{d,s}(x)_g' appear similar; please make the notation for the gen-level-selected sample explicit.
  3. [App. A] Appendix A demonstrates the sideband fix only for GenFoldC; stating whether GenFoldG with empty events behaves the same under the fiducial cut would strengthen the discussion.
  4. [Sec. 2.4] The sentence 'After training we can compute p_{d,unfold}(y)_r by ... p_{d,unfold}(y)_r = \int dx p_{MC,s}(y|x_{d,s}) p_{d,s}(x)_g' should specify that p_{d,s}(x)_g is the background-subtracted, acceptance-corrected data density, since that is how it is used later.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: truth enters only at evaluation, corrections are learned from simulation, and the paper's self-identified limitations (App. A, Sec. 4) weaken generality but do not reduce the derivation to its inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. In the Gaussian test, pseudo-data are drawn from N(0.2,0.8) while the unfolding model is trained with N(0,1); the acceptance/efficiency/background classifiers are trained on simulation, not on the truth p_{d,s}(y), and the final comparison to p_{d,s}(y) is an external check. In the LHC test, the paper explicitly replaces Herwig pseudo-data with reweighted Pythia ('we replace the Herwig dataset with the reweighted Pythia version to facilitate the comparison'), which weakens the independence of the benchmark but does not feed the truth into the training. The acceptance correction Eq. (2.5) estimates p_{MC,s}(g|x) from simulation and is applied under an explicit universality assumption; App. A acknowledges the prior dependence ('The posterior distribution p(y|x) introduces a prior dependence into the acceptance ratio') and shows a case where the naive correction fails. This is a limitation of the 'all effects' claim, not a circular reduction: the estimate is not constructed from p_{d,s}(y). The iterative weight w(y)=E/(1-E) in Eq. (2.9) is self-referential by design, as any likelihood-based unfolding is, but the demonstrated percent-level agreement with held-out truth shows that the iteration is doing real work rather than renaming the input. Self-citations to Refs. [24,35] are method attributions and are not load-bearing uniqueness claims. No circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. The free parameters are tuning choices: iteration count and empty-event encoding. The load-bearing axioms are the standard simulation-fidelity assumptions of unfolding: reliable background model, universal detector response, and calibrated classifiers. The paper flags the first two as limitations in Appendix A and Section 4.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of unfolding iterations n = 5 (Gaussian), 8 (GenFoldC) and 10 (GenFoldG) for physics
    Stopping point chosen by observing convergence of the unfolded distribution; residual prior dependence shrinks with n but is not guaranteed to vanish.
  • Empty-event padding value = 0 (all features set to 0)
    Chosen convention to represent events lost to acceptance or efficiency in GenFoldG (Sec. 2.5); arbitrary coordinate choice that affects the training dynamics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Access to reliable estimates of the background process (simulation or data-driven).
    Sec. 2.1 states background subtraction requires reliable background estimates; if the background model is wrong, the unfolded signal is biased.
  • domain assumption Detector response p(x|y) is universal, i.e., the same in data and simulation.
    Sec. 2.5 (Alg. 6) keeps p(x|y) fixed across iterations; Sec. 4 explicitly removes non-universality by using reweighted Pythia instead of Herwig.
  • domain assumption Acceptance probability p(g) is the same in data and MC.
    Eqs. (2.3)-(2.5) assume the acceptance probability from simulation equals that in data; App. A demonstrates a failure mode when acceptance is prior-dependent.
  • standard math Classifier outputs are well-calibrated likelihood ratios.
    The methods rely on the standard trick that a trained binary classifier estimates density ratios (Eqs. 2.1, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9); calibration errors would bias corrections.
  • domain assumption The conditional generative model pMC,s(y|x) learns the true posterior sufficiently well.
    All unfolding steps assume a conditional flow matching model approximates p(y|x) for paired MC; validation is empirical and no guarantees are provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analysis-ready Generative Unfolding." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WJMLIHJ2

@misc{pith2026250902708,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analysis-ready Generative Unfolding},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WJMLIHJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.02708}
}
read the original abstract

Machine Learning (ML)-based unfolding methods have enabled high-dimensional and unbinned differential cross section measurements. While a suite of such methods has been proposed, most focus exclusively on the challenge of statistically removing resolution effects. In practice, unfolding methods must also account for impurities and finite acceptance and efficiency effects. In this paper, we extend a class of unfolding methods based on generative ML to include the full suite of effects relevant for cross section measurements. Our new methods include fully generative solutions as well as generative-discriminative hybrid approaches (GenFoldG and GenFoldC). We demonstrate these new techniques in both Gaussian and simulated LHC examples. Overall, we find that both methods are able to accommodate all effects, thus adding a complementary and analysis-ready method to the unfolding toolkit.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Profiling systematic uncertainties in Simulation-Based Inference with Factorizable Normalizing Flows

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Systematic uncertainties can be profiled in unbinned likelihood fits by factorizing the normalizing-flow transformation into per-nuisance linear-plus-quadratic terms and training amortized over the nuisance space.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Cranmer, J

    K. Cranmer, J. Brehmer and G. Louppe,The frontier of simulation-based inference, 1911.01429

    arXiv 1911

  2. [2]

    Arratia et al.,Publishing unbinned differential cross section results, JINST 17 (2022) P01024 [2109.13243]

    M. Arratia et al.,Publishing unbinned differential cross section results, JINST 17 (2022) P01024 [2109.13243]

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Huetsch et al.,The Landscape of Unfolding with Machine Learning, 2404.18807

    N. Huetsch et al.,The Landscape of Unfolding with Machine Learning, 2404.18807

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Canelli et al.,A Practical Guide to Unbinned Unfolding, 2507.09582

    F. Canelli et al.,A Practical Guide to Unbinned Unfolding, 2507.09582

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Andreassen, P.T

    A. Andreassen, P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev, B. Nachman and J. Thaler,OmniFold: A Method to Simultaneously Unfold All Observables, Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (2020) 182001 [1911.09107]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Andreassen, P.T

    A. Andreassen, P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev, B. Nachman, A. Suresh and J. Thaler, Scaffolding Simulations with Deep Learning for High-dimensional Deconvolution, in9th International Conference on Learning Representations, 5, 2021 [2105.04448]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    ATLAScollaboration, A simultaneous unbinned differential cross section measurement of twenty-four Z+jets kinematic observables with the ATLAS detector, 2405.20041

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    ATLAScollaboration, Measurement of jet track functions in pp collisions at s=13 TeV with the ATLAS detector, Phys. Lett. B868 (2025) 139680 [2502.02062]

    arXiv 2025

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    Komiske, S

    P.T. Komiske, S. Kryhin and J. Thaler,Disentangling quarks and gluons in CMS open data, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 094021 [2205.04459]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    CMS collaboration, Measurement of event shapes in minimum-bias events from proton-proton collisions at√s = 13 TeV, 2505.17850

  3. [11]

    LHCb collaboration, Multidifferential study of identified charged hadron distributions in Z-tagged jets in proton-proton collisions at√s =13 TeV, 2208.11691

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    H1 collaboration, Measurement of Lepton-Jet Correlation in Deep-Inelastic Scattering with the H1 Detector Using Machine Learning for Unfolding, Phys. Rev. Lett.128 (2022) 132002 [2108.12376]

    2022

  5. [13]

    H1 collaboration, Unbinned Deep Learning Jet Substructure Measurement in HighQ2 ep collisions at HERA, 2303.13620

  6. [14]

    H1 collaboration, Machine Learning-Assisted Measurement of Lepton-Jet Azimuthal Angular Asymmetries in Deep-Inelastic Scattering at HERA, 2412.14092

  7. [15]

    Towards Unfolding All Particles in HighQ2 DIS Events

    H1 Collaboration, “Towards Unfolding All Particles in HighQ2 DIS Events.” https: //www-h1.desy.de/h1/www/publications/htmlsplit/H1prelim-25-031.long.html, 2025

    2025

  8. [16]

    STARcollaboration, Measurement of CollinearDrop jet mass and its correlation with SoftDrop groomed jet substructure observables in√s = 200 GeV pp collisions by STAR, 2307.07718

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    STARcollaboration, Generalized angularities measurements from STAR at√SNN = 200 GeV, EPJ Web Conf.296 (2024) 11003 [2403.13921]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Huang, A

    R.G. Huang, A. Cudd, M. Kawaue, T. Kikawa, B. Nachman, V. Mikuni et al.,Machine learning assisted unfolding for neutrino cross-section measurements with the OmniFold technique, Phys. Rev. D112 (2025) 012008 [2504.06857]. – 19 –

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Badea et al.,Analysis note: measurement of thrust ine+e− collisions at√s = 91 GeV with archived ALEPH data, 2507.14349

    A. Badea et al.,Analysis note: measurement of thrust ine+e− collisions at√s = 91 GeV with archived ALEPH data, 2507.14349

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Datta, D

    K. Datta, D. Kar and D. Roy,Unfolding with Generative Adversarial Networks, 1806.00433

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Bellagente, A

    M. Bellagente, A. Butter, G. Kasieczka, T. Plehn and R. Winterhalder,How to GAN away Detector Effects, SciPost Phys. 8 (2020) 070 [1912.00477]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bellagente, A

    M. Bellagente, A. Butter, G. Kasieczka, T. Plehn, A. Rousselot, R. Winterhalder et al., Invertible Networks or Partons to Detector and Back Again, SciPost Phys. 9 (2020) 074 [2006.06685]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Howard, S

    J.N. Howard, S. Mandt, D. Whiteson and Y. Yang,Learning to simulate high energy particle collisions from unlabeled data, Sci. Rep. 12 (2022) 7567 [2101.08944]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Backes, A

    M. Backes, A. Butter, M. Dunford and B. Malaescu,An unfolding method based on conditional invertible neural networks (cINN) using iterative training, SciPost Phys. Core7 (2024) 007 [2212.08674]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Ackerschott, R.K

    J. Ackerschott, R.K. Barman, D. Gonçalves, T. Heimel and T. Plehn,Returning CP-Observables to The Frames They Belong, 2308.00027

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Shmakov, K

    A. Shmakov, K. Greif, M. Fenton, A. Ghosh, P. Baldi and D. Whiteson,End-To-End Latent Variational Diffusion Models for Inverse Problems in High Energy Physics, 2305.10399

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Shmakov, K.T

    A. Shmakov, K.T. Greif, M.J. Fenton, A. Ghosh, P. Baldi and D. Whiteson,Full event particle-level unfolding with variable-length latent variational diffusion, SciPost Phys. 18 (2025) 117 [2404.14332]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pazos, S

    C. Pazos, S. Aeron, P.-H. Beauchemin, V. Croft, M. Klassen and T. Wongjirad,Towards Universal Unfolding of Detector Effects in High-Energy Physics using Denoising Diffusion Probabilistic Models, 2406.01507

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Favaro, R

    L. Favaro, R. Kogler, A. Paasch, S. Palacios Schweitzer, T. Plehn and D. Schwarz,How to Unfold Top Decays, SciPost Phys. Core8 (2025) 053 [2501.12363]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Diefenbacher, G.-H

    S. Diefenbacher, G.-H. Liu, V. Mikuni, B. Nachman and W. Nie,Improving Generative Model-based Unfolding with Schrödinger Bridges, 2308.12351

  23. [31]

    Butter, T

    A. Butter, T. Jezo, M. Klasen, M. Kuschick, S. Palacios Schweitzer and T. Plehn,Kicking it Off(-shell) with Direct Diffusion, 2311.17175

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Butter, S

    A. Butter, S. Diefenbacher, N. Huetsch, V. Mikuni, B. Nachman, S. Palacios Schweitzer et al.,Generative unfolding with distribution mapping, SciPost Phys. 18 (2025) 200 [2411.02495]

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Alanazi et al.,Machine learning-based event generator for electron-proton scattering, Phys

    Y. Alanazi et al.,Machine learning-based event generator for electron-proton scattering, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 096002 [2008.03151]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Vandegar, M

    M. Vandegar, M. Kagan, A. Wehenkel and G. Louppe,Neural Empirical Bayes: Source Distribution Estimation and its Applications to Simulation-Based Inference, 2011.05836

    2011 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Butter, T

    A. Butter, T. Heimel, N. Huetsch, M. Kagan and T. Plehn,Simulation-Prior Independent Neural Unfolding Procedure, 2507.15084

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Falcão and A

    A. Falcão and A. Takacs,High-Dimensional Unfolding in Large Backgrounds, 2507.06291

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bellagente, M

    M. Bellagente, M. Haussmann, M. Luchmann and T. Plehn,Understanding Event-Generation Networks via Uncertainties, SciPost Phys. 13 (2022) 003 [2104.04543]. – 20 –

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Nachman and J

    B. Nachman and J. Thaler,Neural resampler for Monte Carlo reweighting with preserved uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) 076004 [2007.11586]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Butter, T

    A. Butter, T. Plehn and R. Winterhalder,How to GAN Event Subtraction, SciPost Phys. Core 3 (2019) 009 [1912.08824]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    R. Das, G. Kasieczka and D. Shih,Residual ANODE, 2312.11629

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    Cheng, R

    C.L. Cheng, R. Das, R. Li, R. Mastandrea, V. Mikuni, B. Nachman et al.,Generator Based Inference (GBI), 2506.00119

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Di Bello, J

    F.A. Di Bello, J. Shlomi, C. Badiali, G. Frattari, E. Gross, V. Ippolito et al.,Efficiency Parameterization with Neural Networks, Comput. Softw. Big Sci.5 (2021) 14 [2004.02665]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Heimel, N

    T. Heimel, N. Huetsch, R. Winterhalder, T. Plehn and A. Butter,Precision-Machine Learning for the Matrix Element Method, 2310.07752

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Lipman, R.T.Q

    Y. Lipman, R.T.Q. Chen, H. Ben-Hamu, M. Nickel and M. Le,Flow matching for generative modeling, 2210.02747

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Butter, N

    A. Butter, N. Huetsch, S. Palacios Schweitzer, T. Plehn, P. Sorrenson and J. Spinner,Jet Diffusion versus JetGPT – Modern Networks for the LHC, 2305.10475

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Buhmann, C

    E. Buhmann, C. Ewen, D.A. Faroughy, T. Golling, G. Kasieczka, M. Leigh et al.,EPiC-ly Fast Particle Cloud Generation with Flow-Matching and Diffusion, 2310.00049

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Brehmer, V

    J. Brehmer, V. Bresó, P. de Haan, T. Plehn, H. Qu, J. Spinner et al.,A Lorentz-Equivariant Transformer for All of the LHC, 2411.00446

  40. [48]

    Dreyer, E

    E. Dreyer, E. Gross, D. Kobylianskii, V. Mikuni, B. Nachman and N. Soybelman,Automated Approach to Accurate, Precise, and Fast Detector Simulation and Reconstruction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 211902 [2406.01620]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Favaro, A

    L. Favaro, A. Ore, S. Palacios Schweitzer and T. Plehn,CaloDREAM – Detector Response Emulation via Attentive flow Matching, 2405.09629

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bothmann, T

    E. Bothmann, T. Janßen, M. Knobbe, B. Schmitzer and F. Sinz,Efficient many-jet event generation with Flow Matching, 2506.18987

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    Sjöstrand, S

    T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J.R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten et al.,An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun.191 (2015) 159 [1410.3012]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bahr et al.,Herwig++ Physics and Manual, Eur

    M. Bahr et al.,Herwig++ Physics and Manual, Eur. Phys. J.C58 (2008) 639 [0803.0883]

    2008 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bellm, S

    J. Bellm, S. Plätzer, P. Richardson, A. Siodmok and S. Webster,Reweighting Parton Showers, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 034028 [1605.08256]

    2016 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.1 Release Note, 1705.06919

    J. Bellm et al.,Herwig 7.1 Release Note, 1705.06919

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    DELPHES 3 collaboration, DELPHES 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, JHEP 02 (2014) 057 [1307.6346]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez,FastJet User Manual, Eur. Phys. J. C72 (2012) 1896 [1111.6097]

    2012 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Cacciari, G.P

    M. Cacciari, G.P. Salam and G. Soyez,The anti-kt jet clustering algorithm, JHEP 04 (2008) 063 [0802.1189]

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Krohn, J

    D. Krohn, J. Thaler and L.-T. Wang,Jet Trimming, JHEP 02 (2010) 084 [0912.1342]. – 21 –

    2010 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ellis, C.K

    S.D. Ellis, C.K. Vermilion and J.R. Walsh,Recombination Algorithms and Jet Substructure: Pruning as a Tool for Heavy Particle Searches, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010) 094023 [0912.0033]

    2010 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Ellis, C.K

    S.D. Ellis, C.K. Vermilion and J.R. Walsh,Techniques for improved heavy particle searches with jet substructure, Phys. Rev. D80 (2009) 051501 [0903.5081]

    2009 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Dasgupta, A

    M. Dasgupta, A. Fregoso, S. Marzani and G.P. Salam,Towards an understanding of jet substructure, JHEP 09 (2013) 029 [1307.0007]

    2013 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Larkoski, S

    A.J. Larkoski, S. Marzani, G. Soyez and J. Thaler,Soft Drop, JHEP 05 (2014) 146 [1402.2657]

    2014 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Thaler and K

    J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg,Identifying Boosted Objects with N-subjettiness, JHEP 03 (2011) 015 [1011.2268]

    2011 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Thaler and K

    J. Thaler and K. Van Tilburg,Maximizing Boosted Top Identification by Minimizing N-subjettiness, JHEP 02 (2012) 093 [1108.2701]

    2012 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Milton, V

    R. Milton, V. Mikuni, T. Lee, M. Arratia, T. Wamorkar and B. Nachman,Tools for unbinned unfolding, JINST 20 (2025) P05034 [2503.09720]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Nachman and D

    B. Nachman and D. Noll,Stay Positive: Neural Refinement of Sample Weights, 2505.03724. – 22 –

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.