pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2603.21599 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-23 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: no theorem link

Conditional Wasserstein GAN for Simulating Neutrino Event Summaries using Incident Energy of Electron Neutrinos

Dipthi S. , Kalyani Desikan
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 01:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords conditional Wasserstein GANneutrino event simulationelectron neutrinosGENIE generatorkinematic distributionsInverse Beta Decaygenerative modelevent ntuple
0
0 comments X

The pith

A conditional Wasserstein GAN generates full kinematic summaries of electron neutrino interactions when conditioned on incident energy.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper develops a Conditional Wasserstein GAN that learns to produce complete event summaries for electron neutrino interactions directly from the incident neutrino energy. The model is trained separately on GENIE data for the IBD-CC, neutral current, and nue-e-elastic channels in the 10-31 MeV window and outputs the entire set of kinematic variables without any reduction. A reader would care because traditional Monte Carlo generators are computationally heavy for high-precision neutrino work, and this approach aims to deliver statistically compatible samples at far lower cost while retaining the full joint distributions. Validation on held-out data shows the generated events match one-dimensional marginals and preserve the non-linear correlations among variables.

Core claim

The authors claim that a Conditional Wasserstein GAN with gradient penalty, conditioned on incident neutrino energy, can map latent space to the full multidimensional kinematic data of electron neutrino events as produced by GENIE. Separate training for each of the three interaction channels over 100-300 epochs yields samples whose one-dimensional marginal distributions are statistically compatible with test data and whose complex non-linear correlations are successfully reproduced, enabling holistic event-by-event simulation.

What carries the argument

Conditional Wasserstein GAN with gradient penalty, conditioned on input neutrino energy, that generates the entire summary ntuple of kinematic variables.

If this is right

  • Supplies a scalable alternative to Monte Carlo methods for generating neutrino event kinematics.
  • Enables full event-by-event modeling that preserves all variables and their correlations for the targeted channels.
  • Supports quantitative validation confirming fidelity in marginal distributions and non-linear relations.
  • Reduces the computational overhead required for high-dimensional event simulation in neutrino experiments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same conditioning strategy could be tested on higher energy ranges or additional neutrino flavors to extend coverage beyond the current window.
  • Generated events might accelerate training or validation of downstream analysis tools used in neutrino detectors.
  • Adding conditioning on further parameters such as interaction type or detector geometry could increase flexibility for varied experimental setups.
  • Similar generative models might be applied to other particle physics simulation tasks where full kinematic fidelity is required at scale.

Load-bearing premise

The conditional Wasserstein GAN can capture the full high-dimensional joint distribution of kinematic variables without mode collapse or biases that would distort downstream physics results.

What would settle it

A statistical comparison, such as a multivariate test on held-out GENIE samples, showing significant deviation in the joint distribution of two or more kinematic variables between the generated events and the original data for any of the three channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.21599 by Dipthi S., Kalyani Desikan.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic representation of the GAN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: a) Energy distribution for IBD-CC. b) Energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Generator Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Discriminator Architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Training Stability. Evolution of Critic and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (Elastic Scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: EMD and MAP score evolution over training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Physics Signature Tests. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Event simulation for electron neutrino interactions plays a foundational role in precision measurements in particle physics experiments, yet the computational demand of traditional Monte Carlo methods remains a significant challenge, especially for complete, high-dimensional event reconstruction. In this study, we present a generative model based on the Conditional Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Network (CW-GAN) framework. This architecture is conditioned on the input neutrino energy. It utilizes a Wasserstein loss function, stabilized by a gradient penalty, to learn the complex mapping from a latent space to structured kinematic data. Our model is tailored to replicate the full multidimensional kinematics of electron neutrino interactions as described by the GENIE event generator. Our focus is specifically on the Inverse Beta Decay (IBD-CC), Neutral Current (NC), and nue-e-elastic scattering processes (NuEElastic), spanning an energy window of 10-31 MeV. Our approach abandons variable reduction schemes and instead generates the entire summary ntuple, enabling holistic event-by-event modeling. Training is performed separately for each of the three interaction types, with rigorous convergence monitoring over 100-300 epochs per channel. We perform a rigorous quantitative validation against held-out GENIE test datasets. The generated samples demonstrate fidelity, reproducing the 1D marginal distributions for all kinematic variables with statistical compatibility, and successfully capturing the complex non-linear correlations between them. This work offers a scalable and efficient alternative to traditional MC event generation, providing full-spectrum kinematic simulation for key electron neutrino interaction channels while drastically reducing computational overhead.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a Conditional Wasserstein GAN (CW-GAN) conditioned on incident neutrino energy to generate full kinematic ntuples for electron neutrino interactions (IBD-CC, NC, and NuEElastic) in the 10-31 MeV range, trained separately per channel on GENIE Monte Carlo output and validated on held-out GENIE samples. It claims that the generated events reproduce all 1D marginal distributions with statistical compatibility while capturing the complex non-linear correlations present in the high-dimensional kinematic data, offering a computationally efficient alternative to traditional event generation.

Significance. If the central claim of joint-distribution fidelity holds under rigorous testing, the work would provide a practical, scalable tool for neutrino event simulation that substantially lowers computational cost for precision analyses in neutrino experiments while preserving event-by-event kinematics across the targeted interaction channels.

major comments (1)
  1. [Validation / Results] The validation description (abstract and results) asserts statistical compatibility for 1D marginals together with successful capture of non-linear correlations, yet reports no quantitative joint-distribution diagnostics such as pairwise correlation matrices, mutual-information values, or higher-dimensional discrepancy tests. Marginal agreement alone is necessary but insufficient to establish the claimed holistic fidelity of the full ntuple; this gap directly undermines the load-bearing assertion that the model is suitable for downstream physics analyses without mode-collapse or tail-bias artifacts.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Validation] The abstract and methods would benefit from explicit reporting of the precise statistical tests (e.g., KS or Anderson-Darling p-values) and thresholds used to declare 'statistical compatibility' for each kinematic variable.
  2. [Methods] Training details such as the exact network architectures, learning-rate schedules, and gradient-penalty coefficient should be tabulated for reproducibility across the three separately trained channels.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address the major comment point by point below and plan to incorporate revisions to enhance the validation section.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Validation / Results] The validation description (abstract and results) asserts statistical compatibility for 1D marginals together with successful capture of non-linear correlations, yet reports no quantitative joint-distribution diagnostics such as pairwise correlation matrices, mutual-information values, or higher-dimensional discrepancy tests. Marginal agreement alone is necessary but insufficient to establish the claimed holistic fidelity of the full ntuple; this gap directly undermines the load-bearing assertion that the model is suitable for downstream physics analyses without mode-collapse or tail-bias artifacts.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that quantitative joint-distribution diagnostics are essential to fully substantiate the claim of capturing non-linear correlations. While the manuscript demonstrates visual agreement in 1D marginals and states that correlations are captured, we did not include explicit quantitative metrics for the joint distributions. In the revised manuscript, we will add pairwise correlation matrices (both Pearson and Spearman) comparing the generated samples to the GENIE test set for all kinematic variables. We will also compute and report mutual information values for selected pairs of variables to quantify the non-linear dependencies. Furthermore, we will include a brief discussion on higher-dimensional discrepancy measures, such as the sliced Wasserstein distance or principal component analysis-based comparisons, to address potential concerns about mode collapse or tail biases. These additions will provide a more rigorous validation of the full ntuple fidelity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; validation is external to training data

full rationale

The paper trains a standard Conditional Wasserstein GAN (with gradient penalty) separately per interaction channel on GENIE Monte Carlo samples and evaluates fidelity exclusively on held-out GENIE test sets using 1D marginal compatibility and qualitative correlation checks. No derivation chain exists that reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by construction; the generative claim is an empirical fit whose success is measured against independent data. No self-citations are load-bearing, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled in. The pipeline is self-contained against external benchmarks (GENIE), yielding a normal non-circular finding.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of GAN training stability and the representativeness of GENIE as ground truth; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • GAN training hyperparameters
    Learning rates, batch sizes, network widths, and gradient penalty coefficient are chosen during training but not reported.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Wasserstein distance with gradient penalty produces stable training for high-dimensional structured data
    Invoked implicitly by choice of loss function; relies on prior literature on WGAN-GP.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5572 in / 1296 out tokens · 54069 ms · 2026-05-15T01:12:45.940987+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    held- out

    Special Handling of Variables due to Numerical Instability A critical finding during our experiments was that the PowerTransformer (Yeo-Johnson) transformation, while effective for most attributes, failed when applied to at- tributes with specific numerical properties, leading to unstable training or physically inaccurate results. We identified one such c...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The relationship between neutrino energy and lepton kine- matics is given by: Eν ≈ Ee 1 − Ee me (1 − cos θ)

    Elastic Scattering (NuEElastic): The Eθ 2 Limit For neutrino-electron elastic scattering ( ν + e− → ν + e−), the standard energy reconstruction formula is mathematically unstable for validation purposes. The relationship between neutrino energy and lepton kine- matics is given by: Eν ≈ Ee 1 − Ee me (1 − cos θ) . (12) where Ee is the measured kinetic energ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    golden channel

    Inverse Beta Decay (IBD): Energy Reconstruction In contrast to Elastic Scattering, the Inverse Beta De- cay process ( ¯νe + p → e+ + n) is the “golden channel” for reactor antineutrino detection precisely because it al- lows for robust energy reconstruction [ 30]. The relatively large mass of the target proton suppresses the forward- peaking behavior seen...

    work page

  4. [4]

    under- constrained

    Neutral Current (NC): Q2 Consistency Neutral Current elastic scattering ( ν + p → ν + p) presents a unique challenge: the outgoing neutrino is experimentally invisible. This creates an “under- constrained” system where the incident neutrino energy Eν cannot be reconstructed on an event-by-event basis. Consequently, the standard linearity checks used for I...

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    We evaluated the 6 key pairs shown in Fig 11(a)

    Elastic Scattering (NuEElastic) (6 Pairs) For νe − e− elastic scattering, the correlations are strictly governed by the electron-neutrino scattering kinematics. We evaluated the 6 key pairs shown in Fig 11(a). Kinematic Boundaries: The pairs (Eν, El), (El, Q2), and (ν, Q2) verify the energy transfer logic. The recoil electron energy is constrained by the ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    We evaluated 7 pairs shown in Fig 12

    Inverse Beta Decay (7 Pairs) For IBD, validation requires checking the energy shar- ing between the positron and the neutron. We evaluated 7 pairs shown in Fig 12. The resulting distributions align with ideal theoretical expectations, confirming that the model has successfully learned the underlying conservation laws and interaction dynamics of Inverse Be...

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    end-to-end

    Neutral Current (7 Pairs) Since the outgoing neutrino is invisible in NC events, correlations must be anchored to the recoil nucleon. We evaluate 7 pairs as shown in Fig 13. Recoil Kinematics: The pairs (ν, Ef ), (Ef , Q2), and (ν, Q2) are critical. Since Q2 is experimentally derived from the nucleon kinetic energy TN , the (Ef , Q2) plot must show a tigh...

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    2 1.4 1.6 El × 10 −2 GENIE 1.0 1.1 1. 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Counts NuEElastic: El vs Eν Correlation −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 pxl × 10 −3 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 pyl × 10 −3 GENIE −2.0 −1.5 −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 pxl × 10 −3 CW -GAN 0 10 20 30 40 Counts NuEElastic: pyl vs pxl Correlation 1.0...

    work page

  9. [9]

    2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1

    2 1.4 1.6 pzl × 10 −2 GENIE 1.0 1.1 1. 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1. 8 pzv × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 20 40 60 80 Counts NuEElastic: pzl vs pzν Correlation FIG. 11: ( a)Elastic Scattering : 2D Kinematic Correlations 22

    work page

  10. [10]

    2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 1.6 El × 10 −2

    work page

  11. [11]

    2 1.4 Q2 × 10 −5 GENIE

    work page

  12. [12]

    2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 1.6 El × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Counts NuEElastic: Q2 vs El Correlation 1.0 1.1 1. 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2

    work page

  13. [13]

    2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Counts NuEElastic: Q2 vs Ev Correlation

    2 1.4 Q2 × 10 −5 GENIE 1.0 1.1 1. 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Counts NuEElastic: Q2 vs Ev Correlation

    work page

  14. [14]

    2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 Q2 × 10 −5 0.0

    work page

  15. [15]

    2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0 1. 2 1.4 Q2 × 10 −5 CW -GAN 0 100 200 300 400 Counts NuEElastic: ys vs Q2 Correlation FIG. 11: ( b) Elastic Scattering : 2D Kinematic Correlations (Continued) 23 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 El 0.9396 0.9398 0.9400 0.9402 0.9404 0.9406 0.9408 0.9410 0.9412 Ef GENIE 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 El Ef CW -GAN 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 ...

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2

    2 Q2 × 10 −3 GENIE 9.3 84 9.3 85 9.3 86 9.3 87 9.3 88 Ef × 10 −1 CW -GAN 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Counts NC: Q2 vs Ef 1.1 1. 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2

    work page

  17. [17]

    2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Counts NC: Q2 vs Ev FIG

    2 Q2 × 10 −3 GENIE 1.1 1. 2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ev × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Counts NC: Q2 vs Ev FIG. 13: ( b) NC: 2D Kinematic Correlations (Continued) 27 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ys × 10 −2

    work page

  18. [18]

    2 Q2 × 10 −3 GENIE 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 ys × 10 −2 CW -GAN 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Counts NC: Q2 vs ys

    work page

  19. [19]

    2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0 1. 2 Q2 × 10 −3 87 88 89 90 91 9 2 93 W × 10 −7 +9.3 891 × 10 −1 GENIE

    work page

  20. [20]

    2 0.4 0.6 0. 8 1.0 1. 2 Q2 × 10 −3 CW -GAN 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 Counts NC: W vs Q2 FIG. 13: ( c) NC: 2D Kinematic Correlations (Continued) 28 Appendix A: GENIE Summary T ree (.gst) Parameter Definitions The GENIE Summary Tree ( .gst) format provides a comprehensive record of the generated event kinematics. Table II details the full list of 81...

    work page

  21. [21]

    The GENIE Neutrino Monte Carlo Generator

    C. Andreopoulos, A. Bell, D. Bhattacharya, F. Cavanna, J. Dobson, S. Dytman, H. Gallagher, P. Guzowski, R. Hatcher, P. Kehayias, A. Meregaglia, D. Naples, G. Pearce, A. Rubbia, M. Whalley, and T. Yang, The genie neutrino monte carlo generator, Nuclear Instru- ments and Methods in Physics Research Section A 614, 87 (2010) , arXiv:0905.2517 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    Hayato and L

    Y. Hayato and L. Pickering, The NEUT Neutrino In- teraction Simulation Program Library, Eur. Phys. J. ST 230, 4469 (2021) , arXiv:2106.15809 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Golan, J

    T. Golan, J. Sobczyk, and J. Żmuda, Nuwro: the wrocław monte carlo generator of neutrino interactions, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements 229-232, 499 (2012) , neutrino 2010

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Neutrino nucleus reactions within the GiBUU model

    O. Lalakulich, K. Gallmeister, and U. Mosel, Neu- trino nucleus reactions within the gibuu model (2011), arXiv:1110.0674 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  25. [25]

    Gardiner, Simulating low-energy neutrino interactions with marley, Computer Physics Communications 269, 108123 (2021)

    S. Gardiner, Simulating low-energy neutrino interactions with marley, Computer Physics Communications 269, 108123 (2021)

    work page 2021

  26. [26]

    Paganini, L

    M. Paganini, L. de Oliveira, and B. Nachman, Acceler- ating science with generative adversarial networks: An application to 3d particle showers in multilayer calorime- ters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 042003 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    Ghosh, X

    A. Ghosh, X. Ju, B. Nachman, and A. Siodmok, Towards a deep learning model for hadronization, Phys. Rev. D 106, 096020 (2022) . 30

    work page 2022

  28. [28]

    I. J. Goodfellow, J. Pouget-Abadie, M. Mirza, B. Xu, D. Warde-Farley, S. Ozair, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, Generative adversarial nets, in Proceedings of the 28th In- ternational Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems - Volume 2 , NIPS’14 (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014) p. 2672–2680

    work page 2014

  29. [29]

    NIPS 2016 Tutorial: Generative Adversarial Networks

    I. Goodfellow, Nips 2016 tutorial: Generative adversarial networks (2017), arXiv:1701.00160 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  30. [30]

    Butter, T

    A. Butter, T. Plehn, S. Schumann, S. Badger, S. Caron, K. Cranmer, F. A. D. Bello, E. Dreyer, S. Forte, S. Gan- guly, D. Gonçalves, E. Gross, T. Heimel, G. Heinrich, L. Heinrich, A. Held, S. Höche, J. N. Howard, P. Ilten, J. Isaacson, T. Janßen, S. Jones, M. Kado, M. Kagan, G. Kasieczka, F. Kling, S. Kraml, C. Krause, F. Krauss, K. Kröninger, R. K. Barman...

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    Otten, S

    S. Otten, S. Caron, W. de Swart, M. van Beekveld, L. Hendriks, C. van Leeuwen, D. Podareanu, R. Ruiz de Austri, and R. Verheyen, Event generation and statistical sampling for physics with deep generative models and a density information buffer, Nature Communications 12, 2985 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    Z. Fu, C. Grant, D. M. Krawiec, A. Li, and L. Winslow, Generative models for simulation of kamland-zen (2023), arXiv:2312.14372 [physics.data-an]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Tabular GANs for uneven distribution

    I. Ashrapov, Tabular gans for uneven distribution (2020), arXiv:2010.00638 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    J. L. Bonilla, K. M. Graczyk, A. M. Ankowski, R. D. Banerjee, B. E. Kowal, H. Prasad, and J. T. Sobczyk, Generative adversarial neural networks for simulating neutrino interactions (2025), arXiv:2502.20244 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Horiuchi, T

    S. Horiuchi, T. Kinugawa, T. Takiwaki, K. Takahashi, and K. Kotake, Impact of binary interactions on the dif- fuse supernova neutrino background, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  36. [36]

    A. D. Santos, Diffuse supernova neutrino background (2025), arXiv:2501.08876 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Tomalak and R

    O. Tomalak and R. J. Hill, Theory of elastic neutrino- electron scattering, Phys. Rev. D 101, 033006 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Giunti and C

    C. Giunti and C. W. Kim, Fundamentals of Neu- trino Physics and Astrophysics (Oxford University Press, 2007)

    work page 2007

  39. [39]

    Wasserstein GAN

    M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou, Wasserstein gan (2017), arXiv:1701.07875 [stat.ML]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Z. Zhou, J. Liang, Y. Song, L. Yu, H. Wang, W. Zhang, Y. Yu, and Z. Zhang, Lipschitz generative adversarial nets (2019), arXiv:1902.05687 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    Hejazi, M

    S. Hejazi, M. Packianather, and Y. Liu, A novel approach using wgan-gp and conditional wgan-gp for generating artificial thermal images of induction motor faults, Pro- cedia Computer Science 225, 3681 (2023) , 27th Interna- tional Conference on Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering Sytems (KES 2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Improved Training of Wasserstein GANs

    I. Gulrajani, F. Ahmed, M. Arjovsky, V. Dumoulin, and A. Courville, Improved training of wasserstein gans (2017), arXiv:1704.00028 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, A. Müller, J. Noth- man, G. Louppe, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and Édouard Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: Ma- chine learning in python (2018), arXiv:1201.0490 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Yeo and R

    I. Yeo and R. A. Johnson, A new fam- ily of power transformations to improve nor- mality or symmetry, Biometrika 87, 954 (2000), https://academic.oup.com/biomet/article- pdf/87/4/954/633221/870954.pdf

    work page 2000

  45. [45]

    Cheddad, On box-cox transformation for image nor- mality and pattern classification, IEEE Access 8, 154975 (2020)

    A. Cheddad, On box-cox transformation for image nor- mality and pattern classification, IEEE Access 8, 154975 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    H. Li, Z. Xu, G. Taylor, C. Studer, and T. Goldstein, Visualizing the loss landscape of neural nets (2018), arXiv:1712.09913 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    L. V. Kantorovich, On the translocation of masses, Jour- nal of Mathematical Sciences 133, 1381 (2006)

    work page 2006

  48. [48]

    de Oliveira, M

    L. de Oliveira, M. Paganini, and B. Nachman, Learn- ing particle physics by example: Location-aware genera- tive adversarial networks for physics synthesis, Comput- ing and Software for Big Science 1, 10.1007/s41781-017- 0004-6 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1007/s41781-017- 2017

  49. [49]

    Valencia, D

    E. Valencia, D. Jena, Nuruzzaman, F. Akbar, L. Aliaga, D. A. Andrade, M. V. Ascencio, A. Bashyal, L. Bellan- toni, A. Bercellie, A. Bodek, J. L. Bonilla, A. Bravar, H. Budd, G. Caceres, T. Cai, M. F. Carneiro, J. Chaves, D. Coplowe, H. da Motta, S. A. Dytman, G. A. Díaz, J. Felix, L. Fields, A. Filkins, R. Fine, N. Fiza, A. M. Gago, R. Galindo, H. Gallagh...

    work page 2019

  50. [50]

    Ricciardi, N

    G. Ricciardi, N. Vignaroli, and F. Vissani, An ac- curate evaluation of electron (anti-)neutrino scattering on nucleons, Journal of High Energy Physics 2022, 10.1007/jhep08(2022)212 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2022)212 2022

  51. [51]

    On consistency of the interacting (anti)holomorphic higher-spin sector

    S.-F. Ge, C.-F. Kong, and P. Pasquini, Improving cp measurement with theia and muon decay at rest, The European Physical Journal C 82, 10.1140/epjc/s10052- 022-10478-8 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052- 2022

  52. [52]

    Munteanu, S

    L. Munteanu, S. Suvorov, S. Dolan, D. Sgalaberna, S. Bolognesi, S. Manly, G. Yang, C. Giganti, K. Iwamoto, and C. Jesús-Valls, A new method for an improved an- tineutrino energy reconstruction with charged-current in- teractions in next-generation detectors, Physical Review D 101, 10.1103/physrevd.101.092003 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.092003 2020

  53. [53]

    Vogel and J

    P. Vogel and J. F. Beacom, Angular distribution of neu- tron inverse beta decay, νe+ → p e+ + n, Phys. Rev. D 60, 053003 (1999)

    work page 1999

  54. [54]

    A. A. Aguilar-Arevalo, C. E. Anderson, A. O. Bazarko, S. J. Brice, B. C. Brown, L. Bugel, J. Cao, L. Coney, J. M. Conrad, D. C. Cox, A. Curioni, R. Dharmapalan, Z. Djurcic, D. A. Finley, B. T. Fleming, R. Ford, F. G. Garcia, G. T. Garvey, J. Grange, C. Green, J. A. Green, 31 T. L. Hart, E. Hawker, R. Imlay, R. A. Johnson, G. Kara- giorgi, P. Kasper, T. Ka...

    work page 2010

  55. [55]

    Gallagher, D

    H. Gallagher, D. Harris, A. Kartavtsev, and E. Paschos, Neutral and charged current neutrino-nucleus coherent measurements (2004)

    work page 2004

  56. [56]

    Butter, T

    A. Butter, T. Plehn, and R. Winterhalder, How to GAN LHC events, SciPost Phys. 7, 075 (2019)

    work page 2019

  57. [57]

    T. Che, Y. Li, A. P. Jacob, Y. Bengio, and W. Li, Mode regularized generative adversarial networks (2017), arXiv:1612.02136 [cs.LG]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    W. J. Marciano and Z. Parsa, Neutrino–electron scatter- ing theory, Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 29, 2629–2645 (2003)

    work page 2003

  59. [59]

    Llewellyn Smith, Neutrino reactions at accelerator en- ergies, Physics Reports 3, 261 (1972)

    C. Llewellyn Smith, Neutrino reactions at accelerator en- ergies, Physics Reports 3, 261 (1972)

    work page 1972

  60. [60]

    J. A. Formaggio and G. P. Zeller, From ev to eev: Neu- trino cross sections across energy scales, Reviews of Mod- ern Physics 84, 1307–1341 (2012)

    work page 2012