AG-2024.10-1550·hep-ph·cross-listed: hep-exphysics.data-an
Accurate and robust methods for direct background estimation in resonant anomaly detection
Authors
- Ranit Das
- Thorben Finke
- Marie Hein
- Gregor Kasieczka
- Michael Krämer
- Alexander Mück
- David Shih
Abstract
Resonant anomaly detection methods have great potential for enhancing the sensitivity of traditional bump hunt searches. A key component of these methods is a high quality background template used to produce an anomaly score. Using the LHC Olympics R&D dataset, we demonstrate that this background template can also be repurposed to directly estimate the background expectation in a simple cut and count setup. In contrast to a traditional bump hunt, no fit to the invariant mass distribution is needed, thereby avoiding the potential problem of background sculpting. Furthermore, direct background estimation allows working with large background rejection rates, where resonant anomaly detection methods typically show their greatest improvement in significance.
Submitted
31 October 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2411.00085
Summary
Physicists can use machine-learning anomaly detectors to both identify new particles and estimate background noise without fitting mass distributions, reducing false discoveries from sculpted backgrounds.
- Background templates built for anomaly detection can be reused to directly estimate background rates, eliminating reliance on fitting mass spectra—a step that can accidentally hide signals.
- This approach works especially well at high background rejection rates, where anomaly detection methods gain their biggest advantage over traditional searches.
- The method was validated on realistic LHC Olympics datasets, showing it's practical for actual particle physics experiments looking for rare resonances.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.