Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 1 cited by

BSMArt 2: simpler and faster parameter space scans

T0 review · 1 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read An updated parameter scanning tool adds CMA-ES and other algorithms that make it easier to find diverse testable points in new physics models.

desk verdict BSMArt 2 adds a few standard scanners to an existing tool but gives no numbers to back the 'simpler and faster' claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.05410 v1 pith:JN74CYGZ submitted 2026-06-03 hep-ph

Fernando Abreu de Souza , Nuno Filipe Castro , Miguel Crispim Romão , Mark D. Goodsell , Farid Ibrahimov , Werner Porod This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords parameterscanningnewphysicsLHCphenomenologyevolutionstrategymachinelearningsoftleptonexcessesmodelexploration
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

This paper presents an updated version of a tool for exploring parameter spaces in theories beyond the Standard Model. It adds several new scanning algorithms based on machine learning and Monte Carlo methods, along with simpler setup and more documentation. The authors apply two versions of a covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy scan to models that might account for soft lepton excesses at the Large Hadron Collider. A sympathetic reader would care because these improvements could allow quicker identification of model parameters worth testing in experiments. If correct, this lowers the effort required to generate interesting scenarios for future data analysis.

What carries the argument

The covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy algorithm variants, used to optimize searches through the parameter space of new physics models.

What would settle it

Performing side-by-side tests on a benchmark new physics model, measuring the time to find a set number of distinct viable points and the variety of those points using both the new algorithms and conventional scanning techniques.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The updated tool incorporates new algorithms including Affine Monte Carlo, Contour Finding, machine learning scanners, deep learning scanners, and covariance matrix adaptation evolution strategy methods. Two variants of the evolution strategy scans are used to identify diverse parameter points in models relevant to soft lepton excesses at the collider, showing that such points can be found readily.

Load-bearing premise

The newly added scanning algorithms deliver gains in speed, diversity of found points, or coverage compared to previous approaches.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new methods allow efficient location of parameter points that could explain observed anomalies in collider data.
  • Architectural changes make the tool easier to install and use with added examples.
  • Multiple scanning options give users choices suited to different exploration tasks.
  • Demonstrations with lepton excess models illustrate practical applications in high-energy physics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • These scanning improvements might enable broader exploration of model spaces that were previously too computationally intensive.
  • The techniques could apply to parameter searches in other areas of particle physics beyond collider anomalies.
  • Combining the tool with automated model generation systems might accelerate the full cycle from model building to testing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents BSMArt 2, an updated lightweight scanning tool for BSM parameter spaces that includes architectural improvements, simpler installation, expanded documentation, and new algorithms (Affine MC, Contour Finding, MLScanner, DLScanner, MLS, and CMA-ES). It showcases two CMA-ES variants applied to models relevant for soft lepton excesses at the LHC and claims that these make it easily possible to locate diverse and interesting parameter points for future testing.

Significance. A validated tool with demonstrably faster or more efficient scanning algorithms would aid exploration of new physics models by lowering barriers to finding viable parameter points. However, the central claims of simplicity and speed rest on unshown implementation details and lack any quantitative validation, which substantially reduces the assessed significance.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract: the claims that the new algorithms make scans 'simpler and faster' and that 'it is easily possible to find diverse and interesting parameter points' are presented without any acceptance rates, wall-time measurements, parameter-space coverage metrics, diversity measures, or head-to-head comparisons against random sampling, MCMC, or the prior BSMArt version; these data are required to substantiate the central performance assertions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the claims that the new algorithms make scans 'simpler and faster' and that 'it is easily possible to find diverse and interesting parameter points' are presented without any acceptance rates, wall-time measurements, parameter-space coverage metrics, diversity measures, or head-to-head comparisons against random sampling, MCMC, or the prior BSMArt version; these data are required to substantiate the central performance assertions.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract asserts performance improvements without the quantitative metrics requested. The manuscript describes the new algorithms and demonstrates their application to soft lepton excess models but does not contain acceptance rates, wall-time data, coverage metrics, or direct comparisons to random sampling, MCMC, or BSMArt 1. We will revise the abstract to remove unsubstantiated claims of simplicity and speed and add a dedicated subsection with benchmark results, including head-to-head comparisons where feasible. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: tool-description paper with no derivation chain

full rationale

The paper describes a software package (BSMArt 2) and new scanning algorithms (Affine MC, CMA-ES variants, etc.) for exploring BSM parameter spaces. It contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no predictions derived from first principles, and no load-bearing self-citations that close a logical loop. The central claim is an existence demonstration via the tool rather than a mathematical result that reduces to its own inputs. Absence of quantitative benchmarks is a separate evidentiary issue, not circularity.

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

The paper is a software-tool description with no physical derivations, fitted constants, or new postulated entities. No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BSMArt 2: simpler and faster parameter space scans." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JN74CYGZ

@misc{pith2026260605410,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BSMArt 2: simpler and faster parameter space scans},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JN74CYGZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.05410}
}
read the original abstract

We present version 2 of BSMArt, a powerful yet lightweight scanning tool designed to simplify the exploration of parameter spaces of new physics models. Aside from architectural improvements, simpler installation and expanded documentation with examples, the new version includes additional tools and new machine learning and Monte Carlo scanning algorithms: Affine MC, Contour Finding, MLScanner, DLScanner, MLS, and CMA-ES. We showcase two variants of CMA-ES scans with physics applications relevant for soft lepton excesses at the LHC. We demonstrate that it is easily possible to find diverse and interesting parameter points for future testing.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05410 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Example corner plots for an Affine MCMC scan of a toy gaussian likelihood with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. LSP mass and mass difference between LSP and the lightest neutralino state. Points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p048_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. LSP mass and mass difference between LSP and the lightest chargino state. Points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p049_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. LSP mass and mass difference between LSP and the lightest neutralino state. Points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. LSP mass and mass difference between LSP and the lightest chargino state. Points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p050_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. LSP mass and mass difference between LSP and the lightest neutralino state (left) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Evolution of branching ratios for neutralino decays to leptons in the Optimiser scan. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p052_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Corner plot of NMSSM observables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_8.png]

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. Dark matter in composite Higgs models with a scotogenic EFT

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In the SU(6)/Sp(6) composite Higgs model with a scotogenic Z2, three of four neutral pseudo-Goldstone dark matter candidates can reproduce the observed relic density, while the SU(2)L triplet candidate fails; spin-1 r...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

100 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    "USER" when the observable is already a likelihood/ p-value

  2. [2]

    This allows a soft cutoff, to safely handle extreme values

    "SIGUSER" to apply a sigmoid function to a user-supplied value. This allows a soft cutoff, to safely handle extreme values

  3. [3]

    "EXPUSER" when the supplied value is a log-likelihood so we would need to exponentiate it to obtain a likelihood

  4. [4]

    MINUSEXPUSER

    "MINUSEXPUSER" when the supplied value is a negative-log-likelihood so we would need to exponentiate the negative of it to obtain a likelihood. • "CFUNCTION" is a special function that gives zero within a specified range, and increases linearly outside of it. This is intended for use with the new CMAES ND scan described in the following sections. 17 In ad...

  5. [5]

    PRIOR": <TYPE> in the variable definition, along with

    Priors In general, algorithms such as MCMCs are designed to asymptote to sampling from the posterior distribution. Bayes’ theorem tells us that P (x|D) = P (D|x)π(x) P (D) ≡ P (D|x)π(x) Z , (1) where P (D|x) is the probability of observing data D given variables x, π(x) is the prior probability of variables x, P (D) ↔ Z is the probability of data D, which...

    2000

  6. [6]

    Setup": {

    Contour2D A simple algorithm for finding contours in two dimensions is implemented as a Contour2D scan. It works by first creating a very coarse grid, finding the contour, and then sampling points that lie close to this contour (but not too close to each other). It performs a specified number of iterations. The contour is specified by a function, or a thr...

  7. [7]

    Networks

    ContourGP An interesting algorithm was proposed in [44] to find contours using Gaussian Pro- cesses (GPs). Since GPs generalise very well from little data, they are excellent interpola- tors; but even better they give a prediction for the uncertainty of each point. Exploiting this, the ContourGP algorithm aims to choose not the points that lie closest to ...

    2000

  8. [8]

    CMAES_ND

    General exploratory scan We first perform a general exploratory scan consisting of 1000 independent runs of "CMAES_ND" working in parallel. A single run by itself often converges quickly to a valid region of the parameter space due to the exploitative and local nature of CMA-ES, albeit 48 covering a limited region of the parameter space. Therefore, a coll...

Show all 100 references
  1. [9]

    Seeded HBOS ND scan From the seeds drawn from the exploratory general scan above, we initialise runs using "HBOS" novelty reward. We further demand the seeds used in this scan to have BR(˜χ0 2 → ˜χ0 1 + ℓ+ + ℓ−) > 0.07 (ℓ being e or µ) as this helps to explain the excesses eve...

  2. [10]

    Optimiser

    Seeded Optimiser ND scan The possibility for high branching ratios for the second lightest neutralino state de- caying to the LSP+leptons can be further explored. Here we illustrate the functionality of the "Optimiser" novelty detection option, by using it in a seeded scan foc...

    2025

  3. [11]

    Ranges for the observable constraints considered for the seeded BSMArt pMSSM CMAES-ND scan

    Parameters Parameter Interval Parameter Interval M1 [−4, 4] TeV |M ˜L1|2 [0, 16] TeV2 M2 [−4, 4] TeV |M˜e1|2 [0, 16] TeV2 M3 [0, 10] TeV |M ˜L3|2 [0, 16] TeV2 µ [−4, 4] TeV |M˜e3|2 [0, 16] TeV2 At [−7, 7] TeV |M˜q1|2 [0, 16] TeV2 Ab [−7, 7] TeV |M˜u1|2 [0, 16] TeV2 Aτ [−7, 7] ...

  4. [12]

    We also remove points excluded by LEP: m ˜χ± 1 < 91.9 GeV for ∆ m(˜χ± 1 , ˜χ0

    Constraints Points with masses below 45 GeV are excluded by Z width. We also remove points excluded by LEP: m ˜χ± 1 < 91.9 GeV for ∆ m(˜χ± 1 , ˜χ0

  5. [13]

    < 3 GeV and m ˜χ± 1 < 103 GeV for ∆m(˜χ± 1 , ˜χ0

  6. [14]

    Codes": { 3

    ≥ 3 GeV. 57 Observable Allowed values Scan type mh [122, 128] GeV Both mχ0 2 [200, 400] GeV Seeded m ˜χ0 2 − m ˜χ0 1 [10, 30] GeV Seeded BR(˜χ0 2 → ˜χ0 1 + ℓ+ + ℓ−) > 0.07 Seeded Ωh2 [0.08, 1.14] Both DM DD p-value > 0.1 Both r-value < 1 Both TABLE VII. Ranges for the observab...

  7. [15]

    Staub, SARAH

    F. Staub, SARAH. arXiv:0806.0538 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders

    F. Staub, SARAH 4 : A tool for (not only SUSY) model builders . Comput. Phys. Commun. 185 (2014) 1773–1790, arXiv:1309.7223 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M. D. Goodsell, K. Nickel, and F. Staub, Two-Loop Higgs mass calculations in supersymmetric models beyond the MSSM with SARAH and SPheno . Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no. 1, 32, arXiv:1411.0675 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. D. Goodsell, S. Liebler, and F. Staub, Generic calculation of two-body partial decay widths at the full one-loop level . Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no. 11, 758, arXiv:1703.09237 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Porod, SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders

    W. Porod, SPheno, a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra, SUSY particle decays and SUSY particle production at e+ e- colliders . Comput. Phys. Commun. 153 (2003) 275–315, arXiv:hep-ph/0301101

    2003 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Porod and F

    W. Porod and F. Staub, SPheno 3.1: Extensions including flavour, CP-phases and models beyond the MSSM . Comput. Phys. Commun. 183 (2012) 2458–2469, arXiv:1104.1573 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Athron, J.-h

    P. Athron, J.-h. Park, D. St¨ ockinger, and A. Voigt,FlexibleSUSY—A spectrum generator generator for supersymmetric models . Comput. Phys. Commun. 190 (2015) 139–172, arXiv:1406.2319 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Athron, M

    P. Athron, M. Bach, D. Harries, T. Kwasnitza, J.-h. Park, D. St¨ ockinger, A. Voigt, and J. Ziebell, FlexibleSUSY 2.0: Extensions to investigate the phenomenology of SUSY and non-SUSY models. Comput. Phys. Commun. 230 (2018) 145–217, arXiv:1710.03760 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Athron, M

    P. Athron, M. Bach, D. H. J. Jacob, W. Kotlarski, D. St¨ ockinger, and A. Voigt, Precise calculation of the W boson pole mass beyond the standard model with FlexibleSUSY . Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no. 9, 095023, arXiv:2204.05285 [hep-ph]

    2022

  16. [24]

    Kotlarski and A

    W. Kotlarski and A. Voigt, From Lagrangian to Higgs physics constraints for SUSY and non-SUSY models: interfacing FlexibleSUSY with HiggsTools and Lilith . 65 arXiv:2603.12119 [hep-ph]

  17. [25]

    B. C. Allanach, SOFTSUSY: a program for calculating supersymmetric spectra . Comput. Phys. Commun. 143 (2002) 305–331, arXiv:hep-ph/0104145

    2002 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Aad et al., Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with compressed mass spectra in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles with compressed mass spectra in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no. 5, 052005, arXiv:1911.12606 [hep-ex]

    2020

  19. [27]

    Aad et al., Search for chargino–neutralino pair production in final states with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for chargino–neutralino pair production in final states with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector . Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no. 12, 1118, arXiv:2106.01676 [hep-ex]

    2021

  20. [28]

    Tumasyan et al., Search for supersymmetry in final states with two or three soft leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Search for supersymmetry in final states with two or three soft leptons and missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. JHEP 04 (2022) 091, arXiv:2111.06296 [hep-ex]

    2022

  21. [29]

    Aad et al., Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for new phenomena in events with an energetic jet and missing transverse momentum in pp collisions at √s =13 TeV with the ATLAS detector. Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) no. 11, 112006, arXiv:2102.10874 [hep-ex]

    2021

  22. [30]

    Tumasyan et al., Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV

    CMS Collaboration, A. Tumasyan et al., Search for new particles in events with energetic jets and large missing transverse momentum in proton-proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV. JHEP 11 (2021) 153, arXiv:2107.13021 [hep-ex]

    2021

  23. [31]

    D. Agin, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell, and T. Murphy, Monojets reveal overlapping excesses for light compressed higgsinos . Phys. Lett. B 853 (2024) 138597, arXiv:2311.17149 [hep-ph]

    2024

  24. [32]

    D. Agin, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell, and T. Murphy, Seeking a coherent explanation of LHC excesses for compressed spectra. Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no. 11, 1218, arXiv:2404.12423 [hep-ph]

    2024

  25. [33]

    H. Baer, V. Barger, X. Tata, and K. Zhang, Winos from natural SUSY at the high luminosity LHC. Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no. 1, 015027, arXiv:2310.10829 [hep-ph] . 66

    2024

  26. [34]

    Chakraborti, S

    M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, and I. Saha, Consistent excesses in the search for ˜χ0 2 ˜χ± 1 : wino/bino vs. Higgsino dark matter . Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no. 8, 812, arXiv:2403.14759 [hep-ph]

    2024

  27. [35]

    S. P. Martin, Implications of purity constraints on light Higgsinos . Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no. 9, 095045, arXiv:2403.19598 [hep-ph]

    2024

  28. [36]

    Constantin, S

    L. Constantin, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, T. Reymermier, and W. Waltenberger, On the coverage of electroweak-inos within the pMSSM with SModelS – a comparison with the ATLAS pMSSM study. arXiv:2512.14502 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ellwanger, C

    U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, S. F. King, and S. Moretti, NMSSM explanation for excesses in the search for neutralinos and charginos and a 95 GeV Higgs boson . Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no. 8, 788, arXiv:2404.19338 [hep-ph]

    2024

  30. [38]

    J. Y. Araz, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell, and T. Murphy, Deciphering compressed electroweakino excesses with MadAnalysis 5 . arXiv:2507.08927 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Bagnaschi, M

    E. Bagnaschi, M. Chakraborti, S. Heinemeyer, and I. Saha, Consistent Excesses in the LHC Electroweak SUSY Searches: GUT-based Singlino/Higgsino Interpretation in the NMSSM. arXiv:2512.16783 [hep-ph]

  32. [40]

    D. Agin, B. Fuks, M. D. Goodsell, and T. Murphy, A joint explanation for the soft lepton and monojet LHC excesses in the wino-bino model . Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no. 10, 1145, arXiv:2506.21676 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    M. D. Goodsell and A. Joury, BSMArt: Simple and fast parameter space scans . Comput. Phys. Commun. 297 (2024) 109057, arXiv:2301.01154 [hep-ph]

    2024

  34. [42]

    A. E. Faraggi and M. D. Goodsell, MW in string derived Z ′ models. Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no. 6, 589, arXiv:2312.13411 [hep-ph]

    2024

  35. [43]

    GAMBIT Collaboration, G. D. Martinez, J. McKay, B. Farmer, P. Scott, E. Roebber, A. Putze, and J. Conrad, Comparison of statistical sampling methods with ScannerBit, the GAMBIT scanning module . Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) no. 11, 761, arXiv:1705.07959 [hep-ph]

    2017

  36. [44]

    Feroz and M

    F. Feroz and M. P. Hobson, Multimodal nested sampling: an efficient and robust alternative to MCMC methods for astronomical data analysis . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. 67 Soc. 384 (2008) 449, arXiv:0704.3704 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, and M. Bridges, MultiNest: an efficient and robust Bayesian inference tool for cosmology and particle physics . Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 398 (2009) 1601–1614, arXiv:0809.3437 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Feroz, M

    F. Feroz, M. P. Hobson, E. Cameron, and A. N. Pettitt, Importance Nested Sampling and the MultiNest Algorithm . Open J. Astrophys. 2 (2019) no. 1, 10, arXiv:1306.2144 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Staub, xBIT: an easy to use scanning tool with machine learning abilities

    F. Staub, xBIT: an easy to use scanning tool with machine learning abilities . arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03277 (2019) , arXiv:1906.03277 [hep-ph] . https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.03277

    1906 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Shang and Y

    L. Shang and Y. Zhang, EasyScan HEP: A tool for connecting programs to scan the parameter space of physics models . Comput. Phys. Commun. 296 (2024) 109027, arXiv:2304.03636 [hep-ph]

    2024

  41. [49]

    Hammad, M

    A. Hammad, M. Park, R. Ramos, and P. Saha, Exploration of parameter spaces assisted by machine learning . Comput. Phys. Commun. 293 (2023) 108902, arXiv:2207.09959 [hep-ph]

    2023

  42. [50]

    Hammad and R

    A. Hammad and R. Ramos, DLScanner: A parameter space scanner package assisted by deep learning methods. Comput. Phys. Commun. 314 (2025) 109659, arXiv:2412.19675 [hep-ph]

    2025

  43. [51]

    M. A. Diaz, S. Dasmahapatra, and S. Moretti, hep-aid: A Python Library for Sample Efficient Parameter Scans in Beyond the Standard Model Phenomenology . arXiv:2412.17675 [hep-ph]

  44. [52]

    E. Guo, P. Jackson, J. M. Yang, and P. Zhu, Jarvis-HEP: A lightweight Python framework for workflow composition and parameter scans in high-energy physics . arXiv:2604.25557 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    R. Boto, T. N. Dao, F. Egle, K. Elyaouti, M. Gabelmann, M. M¨ uhlleitner, and J. Plotnikov, NMSSMScanner: Efficient Scans in the NMSSM Parameter Space Proof of Concept. arXiv:2604.25009 [hep-ph] . 68

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. S. AbdusSalam et al., Simple and statistically sound recommendations for analysing physical theories. Rept. Prog. Phys. 85 (2022) no. 5, 052201, arXiv:2012.09874 [hep-ph]

    2022

  47. [55]

    M. D. Goodsell and A. Joury, Active learning BSM parameter spaces. Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no. 4, 268, arXiv:2204.13950 [hep-ph]

    2023

  48. [56]

    M. D. Goodsell and R. Moutafis, How heavy can dark matter be? Constraining colourful unitarity with SARAH . Eur. Phys. J. C 81 (2021) no. 9, 808, arXiv:2012.09022 [hep-ph]

    2021

  49. [57]

    Goodman and J

    J. Goodman and J. Weare, Ensemble samplers with affine invariance . Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sc. 5 (2010) no. 1, 65–80

    2010

  50. [58]

    Heinrich, G

    L. Heinrich, G. Louppe, and K. Cranmer, diana-hep/excursion: Initial Zenodo Release , Nov., 2018. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1634428

    2018 doi

  51. [59]

    F. A. de Souza, M. Crispim Rom˜ ao, N. F. Castro, M. Nikjoo, and W. Porod, Exploring parameter spaces with artificial intelligence and machine learning black-box optimization algorithms. Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no. 3, 035004, arXiv:2206.09223 [hep-ph]

    2023

  52. [60]

    J. C. Rom˜ ao and M. Crispim Rom˜ ao,Combining evolutionary strategies and novelty detection to go beyond the alignment limit of the Z3 3HDM . Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) no. 9, 095040, arXiv:2402.07661 [hep-ph]

    2024

  53. [61]

    F. A. de Souza, N. F. Castro, M. Crispim Rom˜ ao, and W. Porod, Exploring scotogenic parameter spaces and mapping uncharted dark matter phenomenology with multi-objective search algorithms. JHEP 10 (2025) 116, arXiv:2505.08862 [hep-ph]

    2025

  54. [62]

    F. A. de Souza, R. Boto, M. Crispim Rom˜ ao, P. N. Figueiredo, J. C. Rom˜ ao, and J. P. Silva, Unearthing large pseudoscalar Yukawa couplings with machine learning . JHEP 07 (2025) 268, arXiv:2505.10625 [hep-ph]

    2025

  55. [63]

    F. A. de Souza, R. Boto, M. Crispim Rom˜ ao, P. N. de Figueiredo, and J. C. Rom˜ ao, Machine Learning insights on the Z3 3HDM with Dark Matter . arXiv:2603.00254 [hep-ph]

  56. [64]

    H. Bahl, T. Biek¨ otter, S. Heinemeyer, C. Li, S. Paasch, G. Weiglein, and J. Wittbrodt, HiggsTools: BSM scalar phenomenology with new versions of HiggsBounds and 69 HiggsSignals. Comput. Phys. Commun. 291 (2023) 108803, arXiv:2210.09332 [hep-ph]

    2023

  57. [65]

    Belanger, F

    G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, P. Brun, A. Pukhov, S. Rosier-Lees, P. Salati, and A. Semenov, Indirect search for dark matter with micrOMEGAs2.4 . Comput. Phys. Commun. 182 (2011) 842–856, arXiv:1004.1092 [hep-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Alguero, G

    G. Alguero, G. Belanger, F. Boudjema, S. Chakraborti, A. Goudelis, S. Kraml, A. Mjallal, and A. Pukhov, micrOMEGAs 6.0: N-component dark matter . Comput. Phys. Commun. 299 (2024) 109133, arXiv:2312.14894 [hep-ph]

    2024

  59. [67]

    J. E. Camargo-Molina, B. O’Leary, W. Porod, and F. Staub, Vevacious: A Tool For Finding The Global Minima Of One-Loop Effective Potentials With Many Scalars . Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) no. 10, 2588, arXiv:1307.1477 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. M. Straub, flavio: a Python package for flavour and precision phenomenology in the Standard Model and beyond . arXiv:1810.08132 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, H. S. Shao, T. Stelzer, P. Torrielli, and M. Zaro, The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations. JHEP 07...

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Sj¨ ostrand, S

    T. Sj¨ ostrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and P. Z. Skands, An introduction to PYTHIA 8.2 . Comput. Phys. Commun. 191 (2015) 159–177, arXiv:1410.3012 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3

    C. Bierlich et al., A comprehensive guide to the physics and usage of PYTHIA 8.3 . SciPost Phys. Codeb. 2022 (2022) 8, arXiv:2203.11601 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    M. D. Goodsell, HackAnalysis 2: A powerful and hackable recasting tool . arXiv:2406.10042 [hep-ph]

  65. [73]

    Kraml, S

    S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, U. Laa, A. Lessa, W. Magerl, D. Proschofsky-Spindler, and W. Waltenberger, SModelS: a tool for interpreting simplified-model results from the LHC and its application to supersymmetry . Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) 2868, arXiv:1312.4175 [hep-ph]. 70

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Ambrogi et al., SModelS v1.2: long-lived particles, combination of signal regions, and other novelties

    F. Ambrogi et al., SModelS v1.2: long-lived particles, combination of signal regions, and other novelties. Comput. Phys. Commun. 251 (2020) 106848, arXiv:1811.10624 [hep-ph]

    2020

  67. [75]

    Alguero, S

    G. Alguero, S. Kraml, and W. Waltenberger, A SModelS interface for pyhf likelihoods . Comput. Phys. Commun. 264 (2021) 107909, arXiv:2009.01809 [hep-ph]

    2021

  68. [76]

    Alguero, J

    G. Alguero, J. Heisig, C. K. Khosa, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, A. Lessa, H. Reyes-Gonz´ alez, W. Waltenberger, and A. Wongel, Constraining new physics with SModelS version 2 . JHEP 08 (2022) 068, arXiv:2112.00769 [hep-ph]

    2022

  69. [77]

    M. M. Altakach, S. Kraml, A. Lessa, S. Narasimha, T. Pascal, C. Ramos, Y. Villamizar, and W. Waltenberger, SModelS v3: going beyond Z2 topologies. JHEP 11 (2024) 074, arXiv:2409.12942 [hep-ph]

    2024

  70. [78]

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann, and G. Weiglein, anyH3: precise predictions for the trilinear Higgs coupling in the Standard Model and beyond . Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no. 12, 1156, arXiv:2305.03015 [hep-ph] . [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 498 (2024)]

    2023

  71. [79]

    Precise predictions for trilinear Higgs couplings and Higgs pair production in extended scalar sectors with anyH3 and anyHH,

    H. Bahl, J. Braathen, M. Gabelmann, K. Radchenko, and G. Weiglein, “Precise predictions for trilinear Higgs couplings and Higgs pair production in extended scalar sectors with anyH3 and anyHH,” in International Workshop on Future Linear Colliders . 3, 2026. arXiv:2603.28296 [hep-ph]

    2026

  72. [80]

    DESY-26-010

    anyH3 and anyHH: precise predictions for trilinear Higgs couplings and double Higgs production in extended scalar sectors . DESY-26-010

  73. [81]

    Kahlhoefer, A

    F. Kahlhoefer, A. M¨ uck, S. Schulte, and P. Tunney,Interference effects in dilepton resonance searches for Z ′ bosons and dark matter mediators . JHEP 03 (2020) 104, arXiv:1912.06374 [hep-ph]

    2020

  74. [82]

    Alvarez, M

    E. Alvarez, M. Est´ evez, and R. M. Sand´ a Seoane,Z′-explorer: A simple tool to probe Z ′ models against LHC data . Comput. Phys. Commun. 269 (2021) 108144, arXiv:2005.05194 [hep-ph]

    2021

  75. [83]

    V. M. Lozano, R. M. S. Seoane, and J. Zurita, Z′-explorer 2.0: Reconnoitering the dark matter landscape. Comput. Phys. Commun. 288 (2023) 108729, arXiv:2109.13194 [hep-ph]. 71

    2023

  76. [84]

    B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, Precision predictions for electroweak superpartner production at hadron colliders with Resummino . Eur. Phys. J. C 73 (2013) 2480, arXiv:1304.0790 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Fuks, and G. Serret, MadAnalysis 5, A User-Friendly Framework for Collider Phenomenology. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 222–256, arXiv:1206.1599 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Conte, B

    E. Conte, B. Dumont, B. Fuks, and C. Wymant, Designing and recasting LHC analyses with MadAnalysis 5 . Eur. Phys. J. C 74 (2014) no. 10, 3103, arXiv:1405.3982 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Conte and B

    E. Conte and B. Fuks, Confronting new physics theories to LHC data with MADANALYSIS 5. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 33 (2018) no. 28, 1830027, arXiv:1808.00480 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python . Journal of Machine Learnin...

    2011

  81. [89]

    Paszke, S

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, et al., Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems 32 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    N. V. Chawla, K. W. Bowyer, L. O. Hall, and W. P. Kegelmeyer, SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 16 (2002) 321–357

    2002

  83. [91]

    J. Ren, L. Wu, J. M. Yang, and J. Zhao, Exploring supersymmetry with machine learning . Nucl. Phys. B 943 (2019) 114613, arXiv:1708.06615 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Basiouris, M

    V. Basiouris, M. Crispim Rom˜ ao, S. F. King, and G. K. Leontaris, Modular family symmetry in fluxed GUTs . Phys. Rev. D 111 (2025) no. 1, 015012, arXiv:2407.06618 [hep-ph]

    2025

  85. [93]

    R. Boto, T. P. Rebelo, J. C. Rom˜ ao, and J. P. Silva, Machine Learning in the 2HDM2S model for Dark Matter . arXiv:2509.01677 [hep-ph] . 72

    arXiv

  86. [94]

    R. Boto, J. A. C. Matos, J. C. Rom˜ ao, and J. P. Silva, Surveying the complex three Higgs doublet model with Machine Learning . JHEP 03 (2026) 182, arXiv:2510.02445 [hep-ph]

    2026

  87. [95]

    R. Boto, K. Elyaouti, D. Fontes, M. Gon¸ calves, M. M¨ uhlleitner, J. C. Rom˜ ao, R. Santos, and J. P. Silva, Reassessing CP Violation in the C2HDM with Machine Learning . arXiv:2601.15227 [hep-ph]

  88. [96]

    Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation,

    N. Hansen and A. Ostermeier, “Adapting arbitrary normal mutation distributions in evolution strategies: The covariance matrix adaptation,” pp. 312 – 317. 06, 1996

    1996

  89. [97]

    Nomura, M

    M. Nomura, M. Shibata, and R. Hamano, cmaes: A Simple yet Practical Python Library for CMA-ES, 2026. arXiv:2402.01373 [cs.NE] , https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01373

    2026

  90. [98]

    Akimoto, Y

    Y. Akimoto, Y. Nagata, I. Ono, and S. Kobayashi, Theoretical foundation for CMA-ES from information geometry perspective. Algorithmica 64 (2012) no. 4, 698–716

    2012

  91. [99]

    rep., CERN, Geneva, 2024

    CMS Collaboration, Phenomenological MSSM interpretation of CMS searches in pp collisions at 13 TeV tech. rep., CERN, Geneva, 2024. https://cds.cern.ch/record/2906621

    2024

  92. [100]

    Aad et al., ATLAS Run 2 searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles interpreted within the pMSSM

    ATLAS Collaboration, G. Aad et al., ATLAS Run 2 searches for electroweak production of supersymmetric particles interpreted within the pMSSM . JHEP 05 (2024) 106, arXiv:2402.01392 [hep-ex]

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.