Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 5 cited by

Neural network surrogates for particle amplitudes learn to quantify their uncertainties and flag training data problems.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-05-18 19:18 UTC

load-bearing objection The paper adapts ML uncertainty tools to amplitude regression and claims they flag training data noise, but the identification step lacks clear external checks. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2509.00155 v2 submitted 2025-08-29 hep-ph

Amplitude Uncertainties Everywhere All at Once

Henning Bahl , Nina Elmer , Tilman Plehn , Ramon Winterhalder This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords amplitude regressionuncertainty quantificationevidential regressionneural network surrogatesLHC event generationBayesian networksnetwork ensemblestraining data noise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper develops uncertainty quantification for neural networks that approximate scattering amplitudes used in LHC simulations. It shows how network ensembles can be trained to output well-calibrated systematic uncertainties and introduces evidential regression as a single-network, sampling-free way to obtain uncertainty estimates. The main result is that uncertainties from Bayesian networks, ensembles, and evidential regression all mark regions of numerical noise or missing data in the training set.

Core claim

Ultra-fast amplitude surrogates need controlled uncertainties. Network ensembles reduce noise and biases while a new calibration method learns systematic uncertainties for them. Evidential regression supplies sampling-free uncertainty quantification. Learned uncertainties from Bayesian networks, ensembles, and evidential regression identify numerical noise or gaps in the training data for amplitude regression.

What carries the argument

Evidential regression as a sampling-free uncertainty method, together with Bayesian networks and network ensembles that learn to report systematic uncertainties in amplitude predictions.

Load-bearing premise

The training data for amplitudes contains numerical noise or gaps that uncertainty estimates can reliably detect without external validation.

What would settle it

An independent test set with deliberately added numerical noise or removed data points in known regions; the uncertainty maps should show elevated values exactly where the artificial problems were inserted.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • LHC event generation can incorporate these surrogates with built-in uncertainty control for more reliable fast simulations.
  • Training data collection can focus on high-uncertainty regions to fill gaps and reduce noise.
  • Sampling-free methods such as evidential regression become practical for large-scale amplitude regression tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same uncertainty signals could drive adaptive training loops that generate extra data only where needed.
  • Comparable techniques might improve machine-learning surrogates for other LHC observables beyond amplitudes.
  • If the uncertainty flags prove robust, they could reduce the volume of traditional Monte Carlo samples required for validation.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript investigates uncertainty quantification (UQ) for neural network surrogates of scattering amplitudes in high-energy physics. It first examines noise reduction and biases in network ensembles and outlines a method to learn well-calibrated systematic uncertainties; it then establishes evidential regression as a sampling-free UQ technique. In the second part, the work demonstrates that uncertainties learned from Bayesian networks, ensembles, and evidential regression identify numerical noise or gaps in the amplitude training data.

Significance. If the central claims are substantiated with quantitative validation, the results would provide a practical, sampling-free route to uncertainty-aware amplitude surrogates for LHC event generation, directly addressing Monte Carlo integration artifacts and interpolation gaps. The explicit comparison of multiple UQ approaches (ensembles, Bayesian networks, evidential regression) and the focus on localized disturbances constitute a useful contribution to surrogate modeling in hep-ph.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'learned uncertainties from Bayesian networks, ensembles, and evidential regression all identify numerical noise or gaps in the training data' is load-bearing for the second part of the paper yet is presented without quantitative metrics, error bars, or an independent benchmark (e.g., recomputing amplitudes at high-uncertainty points with a higher-precision integrator and reporting correlation between predicted uncertainty and observed discrepancy).
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: no validation metrics, cross-validation scores, or details on how noise identification was demonstrated are supplied, preventing assessment of whether the flagged regions correspond to actual numerical artifacts rather than generic high-variance kinematics or training-set sparsity.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify the precise amplitude processes and kinematic ranges used for the regression tasks.
  2. Add a brief description of the network architectures and training protocols employed for the ensembles and evidential regression models.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive assessment of its potential significance for uncertainty-aware amplitude surrogates. We address the two major comments on the abstract below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate quantitative validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that 'learned uncertainties from Bayesian networks, ensembles, and evidential regression all identify numerical noise or gaps in the training data' is load-bearing for the second part of the paper yet is presented without quantitative metrics, error bars, or an independent benchmark (e.g., recomputing amplitudes at high-uncertainty points with a higher-precision integrator and reporting correlation between predicted uncertainty and observed discrepancy).

    Authors: We agree that the abstract statement would benefit from supporting quantitative evidence. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated validation subsection that selects the top 5% highest-uncertainty test points for each method, recomputes those amplitudes with a higher-precision integrator, and reports the Pearson correlation between predicted uncertainty and observed discrepancy together with bootstrap error bars. The correlations are positive and statistically significant for all three approaches, confirming that the learned uncertainties flag genuine numerical artifacts. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no validation metrics, cross-validation scores, or details on how noise identification was demonstrated are supplied, preventing assessment of whether the flagged regions correspond to actual numerical artifacts rather than generic high-variance kinematics or training-set sparsity.

    Authors: We have expanded both the abstract and the main text to include the requested details. The revised version now reports 5-fold cross-validation scores for uncertainty calibration, together with a quantitative comparison of high-uncertainty regions against the training-data density. We show that the fraction of high-uncertainty points lying in sparsely sampled kinematic bins is significantly higher than expected from a uniform random sample, and we include density plots that distinguish these localized gaps from generic high-variance phase-space regions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical ML study with independent experimental validation

full rationale

The paper is an empirical investigation of neural network ensembles, Bayesian networks, and evidential regression applied to amplitude regression for LHC surrogates. It reports experimental results on noise reduction, bias, and uncertainty calibration, then demonstrates that learned uncertainties flag regions of numerical noise or training gaps. No derivation chain, first-principles equations, or parameter-fitting steps are claimed that reduce by construction to the inputs (e.g., no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, no self-definitional ansatz, no uniqueness theorem imported from self-citation). Central claims rest on direct comparison of model outputs against training data properties rather than any self-referential loop. Self-citations, if present, are not load-bearing for the empirical demonstrations. This is a standard non-circular finding for applied ML work.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents exhaustive extraction; paper implicitly relies on standard neural network approximation assumptions and training convergence.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Neural networks can serve as accurate surrogates for scattering amplitudes
    Central to the use of surrogates for LHC event generation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5601 in / 1064 out tokens · 53073 ms · 2026-05-18T19:18:22.288371+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Ultra-fast, precise, and controlled amplitude surrogates are essential for future LHC event generation. First, we investigate the noise reduction and biases of network ensembles and outline a new method to learn well-calibrated systematic uncertainties for them. We also establish evidential regression as a sampling-free method for uncertainty quantification. In a second part, we tackle localized disturbances for amplitude regression and demonstrate that learned uncertainties from Bayesian networks, ensembles, and evidential regression all identify numerical noise or gaps in the training data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00155 by Henning Bahl, Nina Elmer, Ramon Winterhalder, Tilman Plehn.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of MSE, heteroscedastic, and natural-heteroscedastic losses. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Relative uncertainty versus training dataset size for different kernel pref [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: ∆ distribution for a repulsive ensemble trained for 100 epochs with one hidden layer of dimension 32. The gray lines represent the individual ensemble mem￾bers, while the red curve displays the mean over all members. 3.2 Bias as the limitation of ensembling Ensembles are often used to achieve accurate network predictions when individual network training lacks accuracy or stability. The implicit assumption … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Mean value for ∆ calculated bin-wise for the true amplitudes Atrue. Left: Comparing a full ensemble with its single member contribution. Right: Showing different network sizes and configurations in training length. the absolute relative precision |∆| is essentially the same for both individual members and the mean prediction. We conclude that while the network exhibits a small positive bias, it still maint… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Relative accuracy |∆| comparing the implementation with individual σi for each channel and the global σ of Eq.(36). Right: Mean relative accuracy as a function of the number of ensemble members. The error bars indicate the standard deviation computed over five different runs. be reduced by ensembling. This numerical result directly confirms the conceptual decompo￾sition discussed above: the ensemble … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: systematic pull comparing the implementation with individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of the weights ωk for a GMM with two modes. The orange line represents the distribution of ω1 for the first mode, and the blue line represents the distribution of ω2 , corresponding to the second mode. The bold lines show the mean of ω1 or ω2 over all ensemble members Nens. In the case of noisy data, as shown in the right panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evidential regression results for unsmeared [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Upper left: |∆| distributions for various choices of the threshold smearing strength ε and the threshold smearing window width w. Upper right: learned system￾atic error over learned amplitude as a function of mγγg for different choices of w and ε. The gray horizontal lines indicate the smearing window around mthresh = 200 GeV. 22 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Evidential regression results for the box smearing approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: BNN results for the box smearing approach. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left side: learned systematic uncertainty over learned amplitude as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Results for the systematic pull distributions for events in the threshold re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: |∆| distributions for the runs for the full training dataset (solid) and the events within the threshold gap (dashed). Left: repulsive ensemble results. Right: BNN results 27 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Upper panel: Invariant mass distribution of truth dataset (green), or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Left: Statistical uncertainty as a function of the invariant mass comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Neural Control Variates at LO and NLO

    hep-ph 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0

    Signed neural control variates from normalizing flows, combined with neural importance sampling, reduce weight ranges and negative weights for LO and NLO phase-space integration and event generation.

  2. One Generator, Any Process: LLM-Conditioning for the LHC

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    LLM embeddings condition generative networks for LHC events, yielding faster convergence, higher quality, and generalization to unseen processes.

  3. One Generator, Any Process: LLM-Conditioning for the LHC

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLM embeddings condition a generative transformer to enable faster convergence, better performance, and generalization to unseen LHC processes using a single model.

  4. Open LHC Monte Carlo Event Generation

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    A review of initiatives to make LHC Monte Carlo event generations available as open data to minimize redundant simulations and resource use.

  5. The Monte Carlo Ecosystem in High-Energy Physics: A Primer

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted

    A primer that surveys the architecture, methodologies, computational challenges, and future trajectory of the Monte Carlo event generator ecosystem in collider physics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Badgeret al., Machine learning and LHC event gen- eration,2022 Snowmass Summer Study, SciPost Phys

    S. Badger et al., Machine learning and LHC event generation, SciPost Phys. 14 (2023) 4, 079, arXiv:2203.07460 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    2211.01421 , archiveprefix =

    T . Plehn, A. Butter, B. Dillon, T . Heimel, C. Krause, and R. Winterhalder,Modern Machine Learning for LHC Physicists, arXiv:2211.01421 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    Bothmann, T

    E. Bothmann, T . Janßen, M. Knobbe, T . Schmale, and S. Schumann,Exploring phase space with Neural Importance Sampling, SciPost Phys. 8 (1, 2020) 069, arXiv:2001.05478 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    C. Gao, J. Isaacson, and C. Krause, i-flow: High-dimensional Integration and Sampling with Normalizing Flows, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 1 (1, 2020) 045023, arXiv:2001.05486 [physics.comp-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    C. Gao, S. Höche, J. Isaacson, C. Krause, and H. Schulz, Event Generation with Normalizing Flows, Phys. Rev. D101 (2020) 7, 076002, arXiv:2001.10028 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    2212.06172 , archiveprefix =

    T . Heimel, R. Winterhalder, A. Butter, J. Isaacson, C. Krause, F . Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, and T . Plehn,MadNIS - Neural multi-channel importance sampling, SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 4, 141, arXiv:2212.06172 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Bothmann, T

    E. Bothmann, T . Childers, W . Giele, F . Herren, S. Hoeche, J. Isaacson, M. Knobbe, and R. Wang, Efficient phase-space generation for hadron collider event simulation, SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 4, 169, arXiv:2302.10449 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    SciPost Phys.17(1), 023 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    T . Heimel, N. Huetsch, F . Maltoni, O. Mattelaer, T . Plehn, and R. Winterhalder,The MadNIS reloaded, SciPost Phys. 17 (2024) 1, 023, arXiv:2311.01548 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Deutschmann and N

    N. Deutschmann and N. Götz, Accelerating HEP simulations with Neural Importance Sampling, JHEP 03 (2024) 083, arXiv:2401.09069 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

    Heimel, O

    T . Heimel, O. Mattelaer, T . Plehn, and R. Winterhalder,Differentiable MadNIS-Lite, arXiv:2408.01486 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  11. [11]

    Janßen, R

    T . Janßen, R. Poncelet, and S. Schumann,Sampling NNLO QCD phase space with normalizing flows, arXiv:2505.13608 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    and Jan en, T

    E. Bothmann, T . Janßen, M. Knobbe, B. Schmitzer, and F . Sinz,Efficient many-jet event generation with Flow Matching, arXiv:2506.18987 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  13. [13]

    Bishara and M

    F . Bishara and M. Montull,(Machine) Learning Amplitudes for Faster Event Generation, arXiv:1912.11055 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 1912

  14. [14]

    Badger and J

    S. Badger and J. Bullock, Using neural networks for efficient evaluation of high multiplicity scattering amplitudes, JHEP 06 (2020) 114, arXiv:2002.07516 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Aylett-Bullock, S

    J. Aylett-Bullock, S. Badger, and R. Moodie, Optimising simulations for diphoton production at hadron colliders using amplitude neural networks, JHEP 08 (6, 2021) 066, arXiv:2106.09474 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Maître and H

    D. Maître and H. Truong, A factorisation-aware Matrix element emulator, JHEP 11 (7,

    work page

  17. [17]

    34 SciPost Physics Submission

    066, arXiv:2107.06625 [hep-ph]. 34 SciPost Physics Submission

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    and Kerner, Matthias and Butter, Anja and Heinrich, Gudrun and Plehn, Tilman , title =

    R. Winterhalder, V . Magerya, E. Villa, S. P . Jones, M. Kerner, A. Butter, G. Heinrich, and T . Plehn,Targeting multi-loop integrals with neural networks, SciPost Phys. 12 (2022) 4, 129, arXiv:2112.09145 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Badger, A

    S. Badger, A. Butter, M. Luchmann, S. Pitz, and T . Plehn,Loop amplitudes from precision networks, SciPost Phys. Core 6 (2023) 034, arXiv:2206.14831 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

    Maître and H

    D. Maître and H. Truong, One-loop matrix element emulation with factorisation awareness, arXiv:2302.04005 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Lorentz-Equivariant Geometric Algebra Transformers for High-Energy Physics

    J. Spinner, V . Bresó, P . de Haan, T . Plehn, J. Thaler, and J. Brehmer,Lorentz-Equivariant Geometric Algebra Transformers for High-Energy Physics, arXiv:2405.14806 [physics.data-an]

    work page arXiv

  22. [22]

    Brehmer, V

    J. Brehmer, V . Bresó, P . de Haan, T . Plehn, H. Qu, J. Spinner, and J. Thaler,A Lorentz-Equivariant Transformer for All of the LHC, arXiv:2411.00446 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    Bres´ o-Pla, G

    V . Bresó, G. Heinrich, V . Magerya, and A. Olsson,Interpolating amplitudes, arXiv:2412.09534 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  24. [24]

    H. Bahl, N. Elmer, L. Favaro, M. Haußmann, T . Plehn, and R. Winterhalder,Accurate Surrogate Amplitudes with Calibrated Uncertainties, arXiv:2412.12069 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  25. [25]

    LHC analysis-specific datasets with Generative Adversarial Networks

    B. Hashemi, N. Amin, K. Datta, D. Olivito, and M. Pierini, LHC analysis-specific datasets with Generative Adversarial Networks, arXiv:1901.05282 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1901

  26. [26]

    Di Sipio, M

    R. Di Sipio, M. Faucci Giannelli, S. Ketabchi Haghighat, and S. Palazzo,DijetGAN: A Generative-Adversarial Network Approach for the Simulation of QCD Dijet Events at the LHC, JHEP 08 (2019) 110, arXiv:1903.02433 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Butter, T

    A. Butter, T . Plehn, and R. Winterhalder,How to GAN LHC Events, SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 6, 075, arXiv:1907.03764 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Alanazi, N

    Y. Alanazi, N. Sato, T . Liu, W . Melnitchouk, M. P . Kuchera, E. Pritchard, M. Robertson, R. Strauss, L. Velasco, and Y. Li,Simulation of electron-proton scattering events by a Feature-Augmented and Transformed Generative Adversarial Network (FAT-GAN), arXiv:2001.11103 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2001

  29. [29]

    2305.10475 , archiveprefix =

    A. Butter, N. Huetsch, S. Palacios Schweitzer, T . Plehn, P . Sorrenson, and J. Spinner,Jet Diffusion versus JetGPT – Modern Networks for the LHC, arXiv:2305.10475 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  30. [30]

    Accelerating Science with Generative Adversarial Networks: An Application to 3D Particle Showers in Multi-Layer Calorimeters

    M. Paganini, L. de Oliveira, and B. Nachman, Accelerating Science with Generative Adversarial Networks: An Application to 3D Particle Showers in Multilayer Calorimeters, Phys. Rev. Lett.120 (2018) 4, 042003, arXiv:1705.02355 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    CaloGAN: Simulating 3D High Energy Particle Showers in Multi-Layer Electromagnetic Calorimeters with Generative Adversarial Networks

    M. Paganini, L. de Oliveira, and B. Nachman, CaloGAN : Simulating 3D high energy particle showers in multilayer electromagnetic calorimeters with generative adversarial networks, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 1, 014021, arXiv:1712.10321 [hep-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Erdmann, J

    M. Erdmann, J. Glombitza, and T . Quast,Precise simulation of electromagnetic calorimeter showers using a Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Network, Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 3 (2019) 1, 4, arXiv:1807.01954 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    Belaynehet al., Calorimetry with deep learning: Par- ticle simulation and reconstruction for collider physics, Eur

    D. Belayneh et al., Calorimetry with Deep Learning: Particle Simulation and Reconstruction for Collider Physics, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (12, 2020) 688, arXiv:1912.06794 [physics.ins-det]. 35 SciPost Physics Submission

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Buhmann, S

    E. Buhmann, S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F . Gaede, G. Kasieczka, A. Korol, and K. Krüger, Getting High: High Fidelity Simulation of High Granularity Calorimeters with High Speed, Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 5 (2021) 1, 13, arXiv:2005.05334 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    CaloFlow: Fast and Accurate Generation of Calorimeter Showers with Normalizing Flows

    C. Krause and D. Shih, CaloFlow: Fast and Accurate Generation of Calorimeter Showers with Normalizing Flows, arXiv:2106.05285 [physics.ins-det]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  36. [36]

    ATLAS Collaboration, AtlFast3: the next generation of fast simulation in ATLAS, Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 6 (2022) 7, arXiv:2109.02551 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2022

  37. [37]

    Krause and D

    C. Krause and D. Shih, CaloFlow II: Even Faster and Still Accurate Generation of Calorimeter Showers with Normalizing Flows, arXiv:2110.11377 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv

  38. [38]

    Buhmann, S

    E. Buhmann, S. Diefenbacher, D. Hundhausen, G. Kasieczka, W . Korcari, E. Eren, F . Gaede, K. Krüger, P . McKeown, and L. Rustige,Hadrons, better, faster, stronger, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 3 (2022) 2, 025014, arXiv:2112.09709 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    C. Chen, O. Cerri, T . Q. Nguyen, J. R. Vlimant, and M. Pierini,Analysis-Specific Fast Simulation at the LHC with Deep Learning, Comput. Softw. Big Sci. 5 (2021) 1, 15

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Mikuni and B

    V . Mikuni and B. Nachman,Score-based generative models for calorimeter shower simulation, Phys. Rev. D106 (2022) 9, 092009, arXiv:2206.11898 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    J. C. Cresswell, B. L. Ross, G. Loaiza-Ganem, H. Reyes-Gonzalez, M. Letizia, and A. L. Caterini, CaloMan: Fast generation of calorimeter showers with density estimation on learned manifolds, in 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 11,

    work page

  42. [42]

    arXiv:2211.15380 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  43. [43]

    Diefenbacher, E

    S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F . Gaede, G. Kasieczka, C. Krause, I. Shekhzadeh, and D. Shih, L2LFlows: Generating High-Fidelity 3D Calorimeter Images, arXiv:2302.11594 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv

  44. [44]

    A. Xu, S. Han, X. Ju, and H. Wang, Generative Machine Learning for Detector Response Modeling with a Conditional Normalizing Flow, arXiv:2303.10148 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    uger, Katja and McKeown, Peter , title =

    E. Buhmann, S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F . Gaede, G. Kasieczka, A. Korol, W . Korcari, K. Krüger, and P . McKeown,CaloClouds: Fast Geometry-Independent Highly-Granular Calorimeter Simulation, arXiv:2305.04847 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv

  46. [46]

    M. R. Buckley , C. Krause, I. Pang, and D. Shih,Inductive simulation of calorimeter showers with normalizing flows, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024) 3, 033006, arXiv:2305.11934 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    2308.12339 , archiveprefix =

    S. Diefenbacher, V . Mikuni, and B. Nachman,Refining Fast Calorimeter Simulations with a Schrödinger Bridge, arXiv:2308.12339 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv

  48. [48]

    org/abs/2312.09290)

    F . Ernst, L. Favaro, C. Krause, T . Plehn, and D. Shih,Normalizing Flows for High-Dimensional Detector Simulations, arXiv:2312.09290 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  49. [49]

    Favaro, A

    L. Favaro, A. Ore, S. P . Schweitzer, and T . Plehn,CaloDREAM – Detector Response Emulation via Attentive flow Matching, arXiv:2405.09629 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  50. [50]

    T . Buss, F . Gaede, G. Kasieczka, C. Krause, and D. Shih,Convolutional L2LFlows: generating accurate showers in highly granular calorimeters using convolutional normalizing flows, JINST 19 (2024) 09, P09003, arXiv:2405.20407 [physics.ins-det]. 36 SciPost Physics Submission

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    PIPPIN: Generating variable length full events from partons

    G. Quétant, J. A. Raine, M. Leigh, D. Sengupta, and T . Golling,Generating variable length full events from partons, Phys. Rev. D110 (2024) 7, 076023, arXiv:2406.13074 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Amramet al., CaloChallenge 2022: a community chal- lenge for fast calorimeter simulation, Rept

    O. Amram et al., CaloChallenge 2022: A Community Challenge for Fast Calorimeter Simulation, arXiv:2410.21611 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    SciPost Phys

    A. Butter, S. Diefenbacher, G. Kasieczka, B. Nachman, and T . Plehn,GANplifying event samples, SciPost Phys. 10 (2021) 6, 139, arXiv:2008.06545 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Bieringer, A

    S. Bieringer, A. Butter, S. Diefenbacher, E. Eren, F . Gaede, D. Hundhausen, G. Kasieczka, B. Nachman, T . Plehn, and M. Trabs,Calomplification — the power of generative calorimeter models, JINST 17 (2022) 09, P09028, arXiv:2202.07352 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Bieringer, S

    S. Bieringer, S. Diefenbacher, G. Kasieczka, and M. Trabs,Calibrating Bayesian generative machine learning for Bayesiamplification, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 5 (2024) 4, 045044, arXiv:2408.00838 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Danziger, T

    K. Danziger, T . Janßen, S. Schumann, and F . Siegert,Accelerating Monte Carlo event generation – rejection sampling using neural network event-weight estimates, SciPost Phys. 12 (9, 2022) 164, arXiv:2109.11964 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Janßen, D

    T . Janßen, D. Maître, S. Schumann, F . Siegert, and H. Truong,Unweighting multijet event generation using factorisation-aware neural networks, SciPost Phys. 15 (2023) 3, 107, arXiv:2301.13562 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    Accelerating multijet-merged event generation with neural network matrix element surrogates

    T . Herrmann, T . Janßen, M. Schenker, S. Schumann, and F . Siegert,Accelerating multijet-merged event generation with neural network matrix element surrogates, arXiv:2506.06203 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  59. [59]

    Gal, Uncertainty in Deep Learning

    Y. Gal, Uncertainty in Deep Learning. PhD thesis, Cambridge, 2016

    work page 2016

  60. [60]

    Deep- Learning Jets with Uncertainties and More,

    S. Bollweg, M. Haußmann, G. Kasieczka, M. Luchmann, T . Plehn, and J. Thompson, Deep-Learning Jets with Uncertainties and More, SciPost Phys. 8 (2020) 1, 006, arXiv:1904.10004 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Kasieczka, M

    G. Kasieczka, M. Luchmann, F . Otterpohl, and T . Plehn,Per-Object Systematics using Deep-Learned Calibration, SciPost Phys. 9 (2020) 089, arXiv:2003.11099 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    D’Angelo and V

    F . D’Angelo and V . Fortuin,Repulsive deep ensembles are bayesian, arXiv:2106.11642 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv

  63. [63]

    ATLAS Collaboration, Precision calibration of calorimeter signals in the ATLAS experiment using an uncertainty-aware neural network, arXiv:2412.04370 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv

  64. [64]

    Röver, B

    L. Röver, B. M. Schäfer, and T . Plehn,PINNferring the Hubble Function with Uncertainties, arXiv:2403.13899 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  65. [65]

    Amini, W

    A. Amini, W . Schwarting, A. Soleimany , and D. Rus,Deep evidential regression, arXiv:1910.02600 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv 1910

  66. [66]

    Multivariate Deep Evidential Regression, February 2022

    N. Meinert and A. Lavin, Multivariate Deep Evidential Regression, arXiv:2104.06135 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv

  67. [67]

    N. S. Detlefsen, M. Jørgensen, and S. Hauberg, Reliable training and estimation of variance networks, arXiv:1906.03260 [stat.ML]. 37 SciPost Physics Submission

    work page arXiv 1906

  68. [68]

    On the pitfalls of heteroscedastic uncertainty estimation with probabilistic neural networks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.09168, 2022

    M. Seitzer, A. Tavakoli, D. Antic, and G. Martius,On the pitfalls of heteroscedastic uncertainty estimation with probabilistic neural networks, arXiv:2203.09168 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv

  69. [69]

    Stirn, H.-H

    A. Stirn, H.-H. Wessels, M. Schertzer, L. Pereira, N. E. Sanjana, and D. A. Knowles, Faithful heteroscedastic regression with neural networks, arXiv:2212.09184 [cs.LG]

    work page arXiv

  70. [70]

    Immer, E

    A. Immer, E. Palumbo, A. Marx, and J. Vogt,Effective bayesian heteroscedastic regression with deep neural networks, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2023

    work page 2023

  71. [71]

    Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2

    Sherpa Collaboration, Event Generation with Sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys. 7 (2019) 3, 034, arXiv:1905.09127 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  72. [72]

    Numerical evaluation of virtual corrections to multi-jet production in massless QCD

    S. Badger, B. Biedermann, P . Uwer, and V . Yundin,Numerical evaluation of virtual corrections to multi-jet production in massless QCD, Comput. Phys. Commun. 184 (2013) 1981, arXiv:1209.0100 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  73. [73]

    P . T . Komiske, E. M. Metodiev, and J. Thaler,Energy Flow Networks: Deep Sets for Particle Jets, JHEP 01 (2019) 121, arXiv:1810.05165 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  74. [74]

    H. Bahl, V . Bresó, G. De Crescenzo, and T . Plehn,Advancing Tools for Simulation-Based Inference, arXiv:2410.07315 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  75. [75]

    Jordan, The exponential family: Conjugate priors

    M. Jordan, The exponential family: Conjugate priors. 2009

    work page 2009

  76. [76]

    L. Jiao, T . Denoeux, Z.-g. Liu, and Q. Pan,EGMM: an Evidential Version of the Gaussian Mixture Model for Clustering, arXiv:2010.01333 [cs.LG]. 38

    work page arXiv 2010