Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Review of Machine Learning for Real-Time Analysis at the Large Hadron Collider experiments ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 Machine learning has become a standard and effective component of real-time event selection across the four large LHC experiments.

desk verdict A solid, clearly-written review of ML for LHC real-time triggers with a useful industry section; the main caveat is that the conclusion overstates deployment status because some examples are still R&D. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14578 v2 pith:PAJGZ7F4 submitted 2025-06-17 hep-ex physics.data-an

Laura Boggia , Carlos Cocha , Fotis Giasemis , Joachim Hansen , Patin Inkaew , Kaare Endrup Iversen , Pratik Jawahar , Henrique Pineiro Monteagudo
show 6 more authors
Micol Olocco Sten Astrand Martino Borsato Leon Bozianu Steven Schramm the SMARTHEP Network
This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-exphysics.data-an
keywords machinelearningreal-timeanalysistriggersystemsLHCanomalydetectionFPGAonlinereconstructionparticlephysics
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

Large Hadron Collider collisions arrive at up to 30 million times per second, and the four big experiments can keep only a tiny fraction. This whitepaper argues that machine learning has become a standard and effective element of the real-time selection pipeline, taking over tasks such as track finding, particle identification, pile-up removal, detector calibration, and anomaly detection before events are stored. A sympathetic reader would take the main claim to be that online ML now often performs close to offline reconstruction, and that the bottlenecks that once kept ML out of trigger systems have been removed by specialised hardware and compile-to-FPGA workflows. The stakes are concrete: if true, ML is no longer a future prospect but an operating part of LHC data taking, and the same toolchain is already spilling into industrial real-time applications.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the two-tier real-time trigger and data acquisition pipeline: a hardware-based first trigger that must decide within microseconds at the full collision rate, then a software-based trigger that runs at a lower rate with fuller detector information. The mechanism that lets ML fit into this pipeline is the workflow of training networks, compressing them with quantisation-aware training, knowledge distillation and pruning, and compiling them to FPGA or GPU firmware. This workflow does the work of turning high-accuracy offline-style models into low-latency, resource-constrained versions that can run in the trigger path. The paper also treats the availability of large Monte Carlo training datasets and commercial deep-learning libraries as part of the enabling machinery.

What would settle it

An audit of the deployed Run 3 trigger configurations could settle the claim: if the ML models named in the review are found not to be running in the active trigger path, or if their measured online efficiency and background rejection are no better than the cut-based algorithms they replaced, the corresponding evidence collapses. A direct check would compare recorded trigger rates and physics-object efficiencies in zero-bias data with the ML modules enabled versus disabled.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a convergence: recent advances in neural-network architectures, quantisation-aware training, and high-level synthesis for FPGAs have let the ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb experiments move ML models into the trigger path itself. The paper assembles evidence from each experiment: a graph neural network that finds tracks in the LHCb vertex detector; a ring-based neural ensemble that identifies electrons and photons in the ATLAS calorimeter; a convolutional network that tags hadronic tau decays in CMS; transformer and deep-set models for jet flavour tagging in ATLAS; convolutional and transformer models for pile-up mitigation; neural-network calibration of the ALICE TPC; autoencoder-based data quality monitoring in ATLAS and CMS; and two anomaly-detection networks running in the CMS hardware trigger at nanosecond latencies. The conclusion the authors draw is that the capabilities and efficacy of the event selection pipeline have been considerably enhanced by ML, with online performance in many cases approaching offline quality.

Load-bearing premise

The review's central claim rests on the accuracy of performance figures taken from cited experiment publications and technical notes; the authors do not independently reproduce or validate those numbers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Online reconstruction in the four LHC experiments will continue to converge towards offline quality, reducing the gap between trigger-level and final physics objects.
  • Trigger selections can be made less dependent on predefined signal models: model-agnostic anomaly detectors in the first trigger stage preserve events that standard triggers would discard.
  • ML-generated calibrations, such as the ALICE TPC space-charge corrections, can be computed fast enough to be applied during synchronous readout, improving data quality in real time.
  • The open FPGA toolchains developed for HEP will find continued use in industrial low-latency applications, from autonomous driving to satellite image filtering.
  • As trigger rates and pile-up rise in future LHC runs, further gains in trigger efficiency will likely come from ML models rather than from hand-tuned cut-based algorithms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The examples suggest a broader trajectory the paper does not spell out: once online reconstruction matches offline quality for many objects, the offline reconstruction step may become redundant for those objects, and the division between 'trigger' and 'analysis' could blur further.
  • The heavy reliance on Monte Carlo training data is a hidden liability: if a trained trigger model exploits a simulation artifact, entire event classes could be discarded before anyone notices; this argues for continuous monitoring of trigger decisions on zero-bias data, not just of detector health.
  • A testable extension would be to compare the measured physics output of the four experiments, e.g., signal efficiency versus background rejection, before and after the ML upgrades; a systematic gain across all four would separate the paper's general claim from the individual examples.
  • If the nanosecond-latency anomaly detectors at the CMS first trigger prove robust in Run 3, similar model-agnostic selections could be added in the other experiments' hardware triggers, widening the new-physics search phase space without waiting for offline analysis.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This whitepaper, written by the SMARTHEP network, reviews machine-learning (ML) applications in real-time analysis at the four large LHC experiments. After a brief introduction to the experiments and their trigger/DAQ environments, it describes representative ML use cases in physics reconstruction (tracking, electron/photon identification, tau identification, flavour tagging, pile-up mitigation, heavy-flavour decays), detector calibration (ALICE TPC), and anomaly detection (data quality monitoring and new-physics searches). It then discusses synergies between HEP and industrial real-time ML, with examples from time-series anomaly detection and FPGA-based computer vision. The paper concludes that ML has considerably enhanced the event selection pipelines of the LHC experiments and that online performance increasingly approaches offline quality.

Significance. The review is a useful, clearly written synthesis of a fast-moving topic. Its main strength is organizational: it collects examples from all four LHC experiments and links them to the broader hardware/software ecosystem (FPGAs, hls4ml, quantisation-aware training, knowledge distillation). The descriptions are broadly consistent with the state of the art, and performance figures are attributed to cited primary sources rather than derived in the paper. The paper also highlights real challenges such as interpretability, simulation dependence, and the irreversibility of trigger decisions, and it gives concrete examples of academic-industrial collaboration. If the deployment-status issues identified below are addressed, the paper will be a reliable high-level reference for the community. The contribution is documentary rather than a new research result, which is appropriate for a review/whitepaper.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4 and Conclusion] The central claim that ML has 'considerably enhanced' event selection 'across the large LHC experiments' is not supported by the deployment statuses stated in the text. Section 4.1.1 (ETX4VELO) is described as ongoing development with FPGA deployment as future work; Section 4.2.1 (ALICE TPC calibration) says 'Development ... is ongoing'; Section 4.1.5 (PUMML) is 'evaluated on simulation' and PUMA is not described as deployed; Section 4.3.1 (ATLAS LSTM DQM) is 'preliminary' and not yet run in the trigger. Only the ATLAS Ringer, CMS DeepTau, ATLAS flavour-tagging models, LHCb topological Lipschitz network, and CMS DQM autoencoder are presented as operating in production. The abstract and conclusion should be revised to distinguish production deployments from R&D, and a table stating the deployment status of each example would let the reader verify the scope of the claim. In particular, the statement that the paper presents examples 'in real-time data taking environments across the large LHC experiments' is accurate only for a subset of the examples.
  2. [Section 4.3.2] The text says that CICADA and AXOL1TL were 'developed and deployed' in the hardware-based trigger, but the cited reference for AXOL1TL ([86]) mentions a 'Global Trigger Test Crate', which suggests a test or demonstration environment rather than the production trigger path. Please state explicitly for each of the two models whether it is in the production L1 path or in a test/demonstration setup; the current wording uses 'deployed' ambiguously, and this matters for the evidence supporting the production-deployment narrative.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2] The phrase 'has been ameliorated by the emergence of more sophisticated ML models' is unusual; 'facilitated' or 'improved' would be clearer.
  2. [Section 3.1 / Section 5.1] The statement in Section 5.1 that 'the trigger accepts on average only 1 in 30,000 collision events' is consistent with the 30 MHz collision rate and 1 kHz output shown in Figure 1, but the sentence could be clarified to indicate that this is the full trigger chain, not just the hardware stage.
  3. [Section 4.3.2] The text '30 ˜MHz' appears to be a typographical artifact and should read '30 MHz'.
  4. [Section 5.3] The sentence 'there are may industrial applications' should read 'there are many industrial applications'.
  5. [Section 4.1.2] The sentence about the Ringer being 'marginally slower' but yielding a '50% reduction in the overall CPU demand' should specify the comparison baseline (the full electron trigger path versus the previous cut-based preselection) to remove ambiguity.
  6. [References] Several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted: [21] lacks a full venue/date, [86] has an incomplete title line, [88] lacks a year, and [92] appears as a project name without a full citation. Please complete the bibliography for consistency.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is a descriptive review with no derivation chain, no fitted parameters called predictions, and no load-bearing self-referential reduction.

full rationale

This is a review-style whitepaper that explicitly disclaims exhaustiveness and presents a high-level overview of selected ML use cases: 'This whitepaper, compiled by the SMARTHEP network, does not provide an exhaustive review of ML at the LHC but rather offers a high-level overview of specific real-time use cases.' There is no mathematical derivation, no fitted parameter that is later renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem imported to force a conclusion. The central claim that 'the capabilities and efficacy of the event selection pipeline have been considerably enhanced by the use of ML techniques' is supported by cited experiment publications and technical reports describing deployed or in-development systems, not by the authors' own prior results. The self-citations that appear (refs [21], [59], [60], [92]) are used as pointers to specific examples of ongoing work, such as ETX4VELO track reconstruction and the GeNovae financial-data project; they are not premises from which the review's conclusions are deduced. Even if some cited examples are R&D-stage rather than fully deployed production systems, that is a question of evidential strength or correctness, not circularity. No step in the paper reduces, by construction or by self-citation, to the paper's own inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

As a review, the paper introduces no free parameters, no new mathematical axioms, and no invented entities. It depends only on the correctness of the cited prior work and the described experimental context.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Performance figures quoted from cited experiment publications and technical reports are accurate.
    The review's examples rely on numbers taken from primary sources without independent verification. This is standard for a review, but the accuracy of the quoted figures is a load-bearing assumption for the specific claims in Section 4.
  • domain assumption The described ML systems are deployed in the LHC experiments as stated.
    The review summarizes deployment status from the cited literature; if any system is not actually deployed in the described configuration, the corresponding use-case would be inaccurate.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Review of Machine Learning for Real-Time Analysis at the Large Hadron Collider experiments ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PAJGZ7F4

@misc{pith2026250614578,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Review of Machine Learning for Real-Time Analysis at the Large Hadron Collider experiments ALICE, ATLAS, CMS and LHCb},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PAJGZ7F4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14578}
}
read the original abstract

The field of high energy physics (HEP) has seen a marked increase in the use of machine learning (ML) techniques in recent years. The proliferation of applications has revolutionised many aspects of the data processing pipeline at collider experiments including the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). In this whitepaper, we discuss the increasingly crucial role that ML plays in real-time analysis (RTA) at the LHC, namely in the context of the unique challenges posed by the trigger systems of the large LHC experiments. We describe a small selection of the ML applications in use at the large LHC experiments to demonstrate the breadth of use-cases. We continue by emphasising the importance of collaboration and engagement between the HEP community and industry, highlighting commonalities and synergies between the two. The mutual benefits are showcased in several interdisciplinary examples of RTA from industrial contexts. This whitepaper, compiled by the SMARTHEP network, does not provide an exhaustive review of ML at the LHC but rather offers a high-level overview of specific real-time use cases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14578 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Simplified schematic representation of typical LHC data processing pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of unsupervised learning in anomaly detection training for HEP. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Real-Time Analysis of Unstructured Data with Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Architectures

    physics.data-an 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A graph neural network (ETX4VELO) reconstructs LHCb VELO tracks with performance comparable to the production 'search by triplet' algorithm while running end to end in the GPU-based first-level trigger, with additiona...

  2. Physics of the Electron-Ion Collider in China

    hep-ph 2026-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A review of the EicC physics case argues that the proposed Chinese electron-ion collider, at 15-20 GeV collision energy, can complement the US EIC with high-precision measurements of sea-quark spin structure, proton m...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [4]

    ALICE Central Trigger System for LHC Run 3

    J. Kvapil, A. Bhasin, M. Bombara, D. Evans, A. Jusko, A. Kluge et al.,ALICE Central Trigger System for LHC Run 3,EPJ Web Conf.251(2021) 04022 [2106.08353]. [5]ATLAScollaboration,The ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider: A description of the detector configuration for Run 3,JINST19(2024) P05063. [6]ATLAScollaboration,The ATLAS experiment at t...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  2. [12]

    R. Aaij, M. Adinolfi, S. Aiola, S. Akar, J. Albrecht, M. Alexander et al.,A comparison of cpu and gpu implementations for the lhcb experiment run 3 trigger,Computing and Software for Big Science6(2022) 1

    work page 2022

  3. [13]

    R. Aaij, J. Albrecht, M. Belous, P. Billoir, T. Boettcher, A. Brea Rodr´ ıguez et al.,Allen: A high-level trigger on GPUs for LHCb,Computing and Software for big Science4(2020) 1

    work page 2020

  4. [14]

    Grid,The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid,https://cds.cern.ch/record/1997398 (2012)

    W.L.C. Grid,The Worldwide LHC Computing Grid,https://cds.cern.ch/record/1997398 (2012) . 21

    work page arXiv 2012

  5. [15]

    Molina, A

    J.F. Molina, A. Forti, M. Girone and A. Sciaba,Operating the worldwide LHC computing grid: current and future challenges, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 513, p. 062044, IOP Publishing, 2014. [16]ALICEcollaboration,Upgrade of the ALICE Experiment: Letter Of Intent,J. Phys. G 41(2014) 087001. [17]ATLAScollaboration,The ATLAS trigger system fo...

    arXiv 2014

  6. [21]

    Network,Review of triggers in lhc experiments: Review of the state of the art of the triggers of lhc collaborations and best practices,

    T.S. Network,Review of triggers in lhc experiments: Review of the state of the art of the triggers of lhc collaborations and best practices,

    work page

  7. [22]

    Smith,Triggering at the LHC,Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science66 (2016) 123

    W.H. Smith,Triggering at the LHC,Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science66 (2016) 123

    work page 2016

  8. [23]

    Denby,Neural networks and cellular automata in experimental high energy physics, Computer Physics Communications49(1988) 429

    B. Denby,Neural networks and cellular automata in experimental high energy physics, Computer Physics Communications49(1988) 429. [24]ALEPHcollaboration,Determination of from the measurement of the inclusive charmless semileptonic branching ratio of b hadrons,The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields6(1999) 555. [25]OPELcollaboration,A measureme...

    work page 1988

Show all 65 references
  1. [26]

    L¨ onnblad, C

    L. L¨ onnblad, C. Peterson and T. R¨ ognvaldsson,Using neural networks to identify jets, Nuclear Physics B349(1991) 675

    1991

  2. [27]

    Roe, H.-J

    B.P. Roe, H.-J. Yang, J. Zhu, Y. Liu, I. Stancu and G. McGregor,Boosted decision trees as an alternative to artificial neural networks for particle identification,Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associat...

    2005

  3. [28]

    Summers, G

    S. Summers, G. Di Guglielmo, J. Duarte, P. Harris, D. Hoang, S. Jindariani et al.,Fast inference of boosted decision trees in FPGAs for particle physics,JINST15(2020) P05026

    2020

  4. [29]

    Umuroglu, N.J

    Y. Umuroglu, N.J. Fraser, G. Gambardella, M. Blott, P. Leong, M. Jahre et al.,FINN: A framework for fast, scalable binarized neural network inference, inProceedings of the 2017 ACM/SIGDA international symposium on field-programmable gate arrays, pp. 65–74, 2017

    2017

  5. [30]

    T. Hong, B. Carlson, B. Eubanks, S. Racz, S. Roche, J. Stelzer et al.,Nanosecond machine learning event classification with boosted decision trees in FPGA for high energy physics, 2021. 22

    2021

  6. [31]

    10.5281/zenodo.1201549

    FastML Team,fastmachinelearning/hls4ml, 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.1201549

    2024 doi

  7. [32]

    Fahim, B

    F. Fahim, B. Hawks, C. Herwig, J. Hirschauer, S. Jindariani, N. Tran et al.,HLS4ML: An open-source codesign workflow to empower scientific low-power machine learning devices, arXiv preprint 2103.05579(2021)

    2021 arXiv

  8. [33]

    Athur, R

    D.K. Athur, R. Pawar and A. Arora,Out-of-the-box performance of FPGAs for ML workloads using Vitis AI, inInternational Symposium on Applied Reconfigurable Computing, pp. 123–139, Springer, 2025

    2025

  9. [34]

    Ahmad, M

    J. Ahmad, M. Jervis and R. Venkata,Intel®FPGAs and SoCs with Intel®FPGA AI suite and OpenVINO toolkit drive embedded/edge AI/machine learning applications, 2022

    2022

  10. [35]

    Nagel, M

    M. Nagel, M. Fournarakis, R.A. Amjad, Y. Bondarenko, M. Van Baalen and T. Blankevoort,A white paper on neural network quantization,arXiv preprint 2106.08295 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  11. [36]

    J. Gou, B. Yu, S.J. Maybank and D. Tao,Knowledge distillation: A survey,International Journal of Computer Vision129(2021) 1789

    2021

  12. [37]

    Cho and B

    J.H. Cho and B. Hariharan,On the efficacy of knowledge distillation, inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, pp. 4794–4802, 2019

    2019

  13. [38]

    Hinton, O

    G. Hinton, O. Vinyals and J. Dean,Distilling the knowledge in a neural network,arXiv preprint 1503.02531(2015)

    2015 arXiv

  14. [39]

    Cheng, M

    H. Cheng, M. Zhang and J.Q. Shi,A survey on deep neural network pruning: Taxonomy, comparison, analysis, and recommendations,IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence(2024)

    2024

  15. [40]

    Kuzmin, M

    A. Kuzmin, M. Nagel, M. Van Baalen, A. Behboodi and T. Blankevoort,Pruning vs quantization: Which is better?,Advances in neural information processing systems36 (2023) 62414

    2023

  16. [41]

    Aarrestad, V

    T. Aarrestad, V. Loncar, N. Ghielmetti, M. Pierini, S. Summers, J. Ngadiuba et al.,Fast convolutional neural networks on FPGAs with HLS4ML,Machine Learning: Science and Technology2(2021) 045015

    2021

  17. [42]

    Coelho, A

    C.N. Coelho, A. Kuusela, S. Li, H. Zhuang, J. Ngadiuba, T.K. Aarrestad et al.,Automatic heterogeneous quantization of deep neural networks for low-latency inference on the edge for particle detectors,Nature Machine Intelligence3(2021) 675

    2021

  18. [43]

    Wang, J.J

    E. Wang, J.J. Davis, D. Moro, P. Zielinski, J.J. Lim, C. Coelho et al.,Enabling binary neural network training on the edge, inProceedings of the 5th international workshop on embedded and mobile deep learning, pp. 37–38, 2021

    2021

  19. [44]

    Pappalardo,Xilinx/brevitas, 2023

    A. Pappalardo,Xilinx/brevitas, 2023. 10.5281/zenodo.3333552

    2023 doi

  20. [45]

    ONNX Runtime developers,ONNX Runtime, Nov, 2018

    2018

  21. [46]

    Y. Jia, E. Shelhamer, J. Donahue, S. Karayev, J. Long, R. Girshick et al.,Caffe: Convolutional architecture for fast feature embedding,arXiv preprint 1408.5093(2014) . 23

    2014 arXiv

  22. [47]

    Paszke,PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,arXiv preprint 1912.01703(2019)

    A. Paszke,PyTorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,arXiv preprint 1912.01703(2019)

    2019 arXiv

  23. [48]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel et al., Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,Journal of Machine Learning Research12 (2011) 2825

    2011

  24. [49]

    et al.,TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems, 2015

    M.A. et al.,TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems, 2015

    2015

  25. [50]

    Hoecker, P

    A. Hoecker, P. Speckmayer, J. Stelzer, J. Therhaag, E. von Toerne, H. Voss et al., TMVA-toolkit for multivariate data analysis,arXiv preprint physics/0703039(2007)

    2007 arXiv

  26. [51]

    Sculley, G

    D. Sculley, G. Holt, D. Golovin, E. Davydov, T. Phillips, D. Ebner et al.,Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems,Advances in neural information processing systems28 (2015)

    2015

  27. [52]

    Cohen and M

    T. Cohen and M. Welling,Group equivariant convolutional networks, inInternational conference on machine learning, pp. 2990–2999, PMLR, 2016

    2016

  28. [53]

    Spinner, V

    J. Spinner, V. Bres´ o, P. De Haan, T. Plehn, J. Thaler and J. Brehmer, Lorentz-equivariant geometric algebra transformers for high-energy physics,Advances in neural information processing systems37(2024) 22178

    2024

  29. [54]

    Toscano, V

    J.D. Toscano, V. Oommen, A.J. Varghese, Z. Zou, N. Ahmadi Daryakenari, C. Wu et al., From pinns to pikans: Recent advances in physics-informed machine learning,Machine Learning for Computational Science and Engineering1(2025) 1

    2025

  30. [55]

    Wetzel, S

    S.J. Wetzel, S. Ha, R. Iten, M. Klopotek and Z. Liu,Interpretable machine learning in physics: A review,arXiv preprint 2503.23616(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [56]

    Arzani, L

    A. Arzani, L. Yuan, P. Newell and B. Wang,Interpreting and generalizing deep learning in physics-based problems with functional linear models,Engineering with Computers (2024) 1

    2024

  32. [57]

    Guest, K

    D. Guest, K. Cranmer and D. Whiteson,Deep learning and its application to LHC physics,Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science68(2018) 161

    2018

  33. [58]

    Morris,First experiences with the LHCb heterogeneous software trigger,arXiv preprint 2412.05041(2024)

    A. Morris,First experiences with the LHCb heterogeneous software trigger,arXiv preprint 2412.05041(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [59]

    Correia, F

    A. Correia, F. Giasemis, N. Garroum, V.V. Gligorov and B. Granado,Graph neural network-based track finding in the LHCb vertex detector,JINST19(2024)

    2024

  35. [60]

    Giasemis, V

    F.I. Giasemis, V. Lonˇ car, B. Granado and V.V. Gligorov,Comparative analysis of FPGA and GPU performance for machine learning-based track reconstruction at LHCb,arXiv preprint 2502.02304(2025) . [61]ATLAScollaboration,The ATLAS trigger system for LHC Run 3 and trigger perform...

    2025 arXiv

  36. [68]

    19, JINST (2024)

    Collective,The Large Hadron Collider and The Experiments for Run 3: Special issue, vol. 19, JINST (2024)

    2024

  37. [69]

    Komiske, E.M

    P.T. Komiske, E.M. Metodiev, B. Nachman and M.D. Schwartz,Pileup mitigation with machine learning (PUMML),JHEP2017(2017) 1

    2017

  38. [70]

    Maier, S.M

    B. Maier, S.M. Narayanan, G. de Castro, M. Goncharov, C. Paus and M. Schott,Pile-up mitigation using attention,Machine Learning: Science and Technology3(2022) 025012

    2022

  39. [71]

    Delaney, N

    B. Delaney, N. Schulte, G. Ciezarek, N. Nolte, M. Williams and J. Albrecht,Applications of lipschitz neural networks to the Run 3 LHCb trigger system, inEPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 295, p. 09005, EDP Sciences, 2024

    2024

  40. [72]

    Schulte, B.R

    N. Schulte, B.R. Delaney, N. Nolte, G.M. Ciezarek, J. Albrecht and M. Williams, Development of the topological trigger for LHCb Run 3,arXiv preprint 2306.09873(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  41. [73]

    K. Abe, T. Akagi, N. Allen, W. Ash, D. Aston, K. Baird et al.,Measurement ofR b using a vertex mass tag,Physical review letters80(1998) 660. [74]ALICEcollaboration,Reconstruction in ALICE and calibration of TPC space-charge distortions in Run 3,arXiv preprint 2109.12000(2021)

    1998 arXiv

  42. [75]

    Gorbunov, E

    S. Gorbunov, E. Hellb¨ ar, G.M. Innocenti, M. Ivanov, M. Kabus, M. Kleiner et al.,Deep neural network techniques in the calibration of space-charge distortion fluctuations for the ALICE TPC, inEPJ Web of Conferences, vol. 251, p. 03020, 2021, DOI

    2021

  43. [76]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer and T. Brox,U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation, inMICCAI 2015, pp. 234–241, Springer, 2015, https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.04597

    2015 arXiv

  44. [77]

    Belis, P

    V. Belis, P. Odagiu and T.K. Aarrestad,Machine learning for anomaly detection in particle physics,Reviews in Physics12(2024) 100091

    2024

  45. [78]

    A.A. Pol, G. Cerminara, C. Germain, M. Pierini and A. Seth,Detector monitoring with artificial neural networks at the cms experiment at the cern large hadron collider, Computing and Software for Big Science3(2019) 1. 25

    2019

  46. [79]

    Brinkerhoff, C

    A. Brinkerhoff, C. Sutantawibul, R. White, C. Daumann, C. Freer, I. Suarez et al., Anomaly detection for automated data quality monitoring in the cms detector,arXiv preprint 2501.13789(2025) . [80]CMS ECALcollaboration,Autoencoder-based anomaly detection system for online data...

    2025

  47. [81]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren and J. Sun,Deep residual learning for image recognition, in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 770–778, 2016. [82]ATLAScollaboration,Autoencoder-based time series anomaly detection for ATLAS Liquid Argon c...

    2024

  48. [83]

    Hochreiter and J

    S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber,Long short-term memory,Neural Comput.9(1997) 1735. [84]CMScollaboration,Real-time anomaly detection at the L1 trigger of CMS experiment, arXiv preprint 2411.19506(2024) . [85]CMScollaboration,Level-1 Trigger Calorimeter Image Convolutional Anom...

    1997 arXiv

  49. [87]

    Le Borgne, W

    Y.-A. Le Borgne, W. Siblini, B. Lebichot and G. Bontempi,Reproducible Machine Learning for Credit Card Fraud Detection - Practical Handbook, Universit´ e Libre de Bruxelles (2022)

    2022

  50. [88]

    Bank,Sixth Report on Card Fraud,

    E.C. Bank,Sixth Report on Card Fraud,

  51. [89]

    Y. Liu, T. Hu, H. Zhang, H. Wu, S. Wang, L. Ma et al.,itransformer: Inverted transformers are effective for time series forecasting,arXiv preprint 2310.06625(2023)

    2023 arXiv

  52. [90]

    Nakamura, M

    T. Nakamura, M. Imamura, R. Mercer and E. Keogh,Merlin: Parameter-free discovery of arbitrary length anomalies in massive time series archives, in2020 IEEE international conference on data mining (ICDM), pp. 1190–1195, IEEE, 2020

    2020

  53. [91]

    Liu, K.M

    F.T. Liu, K.M. Ting and Z.-H. Zhou,Isolation forest, in2008 eighth ieee international conference on data mining, pp. 413–422, IEEE, 2008

    2008

  54. [92]

    Feillet and M

    P. Feillet and M. Olocco,GeNovae, 2025

    2025

  55. [93]

    Ghielmetti, V

    N. Ghielmetti, V. Loncar, M. Pierini, M. Roed, S. Summers, T. Aarrestad et al., Real-time semantic segmentation on FPGAs for autonomous vehicles with HLS4ML, Machine Learning: Science and Technology3(2022) 045011

    2022

  56. [94]

    Paszke, A

    A. Paszke, A. Chaurasia, S. Kim and E. Culurciello,Enet: A deep neural network architecture for real-time semantic segmentation,arXiv preprint 1606.02147(2016)

    2016 arXiv

  57. [95]

    Tzelepis, N

    S. Tzelepis, N. Ghielmetti, N.-M. Lemoine, M. Pierini, S. Summers and F. De Vielleville, Edge SpAIce: Enabling onboard data compression with machine learning on FPGAs, Sept., 2024. 10.5281/zenodo.13865939. 26

    2024 doi

Pith tools

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