Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Multiple testing for signal-agnostic searches of new physics with machine learning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.12296 v1 pith:326NIPM7 submitted 2024-08-22 hep-ph cs.LGhep-exphysics.data-anstat.ME

Multiple testing for signal-agnostic searches of new physics with machine learning

classification hep-ph cs.LGhep-exphysics.data-anstat.ME
keywords learningmachinemultiplephysicssignal-agnostictesttestingsearches
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we address the question of how to enhance signal-agnostic searches by leveraging multiple testing strategies. Specifically, we consider hypothesis tests relying on machine learning, where model selection can introduce a bias towards specific families of new physics signals. We show that it is beneficial to combine different tests, characterised by distinct choices of hyperparameters, and that performances comparable to the best available test are generally achieved while providing a more uniform response to various types of anomalies. Focusing on the New Physics Learning Machine, a methodology to perform a signal-agnostic likelihood-ratio test, we explore a number of approaches to multiple testing, such as combining p-values and aggregating test statistics.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Look everywhere effects in anomaly detection

    hep-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0

    Weakly supervised anomaly detectors that train and test on the same data produce badly miscalibrated p-values; independent test sets are calibrated but insensitive, while k-fold cross-validation is a workable middle ground.