AG-2025.02-1282·hep-ph·cross-listed: hep-exphysics.data-an
Exploring the BSM parameter space with Neural Network aided Simulation-Based Inference
Authors
- Atrideb Chatterjee
- Arghya Choudhury
- Sourav Mitra
- Arpita Mondal
- Subhadeep Mondal
Abstract
Some of the issues that make sampling parameter spaces of various beyond the Standard Model (BSM) scenarios computationally expensive are the high dimensionality of the input parameter space, complex likelihoods, and stringent experimental constraints. In this work, we explore likelihood-free approaches, leveraging neural network-aided Simulation-Based Inference (SBI) to alleviate this issue. We focus on three amortized SBI methods: Neural Posterior Estimation (NPE), Neural Likelihood Estimation (NLE), and Neural Ratio Estimation (NRE) and perform a comparative analysis through the validation test known as the \textit{ Test of Accuracy with Random Points} (TARP), as well as through posterior sample efficiency and computational time. As an example, we focus on the scalar sector of the phenomenological minimal supersymmetric SM (pMSSM) and observe that the NPE method outperforms the others and generates correct posterior distributions of the parameters with a minimal number of samples. The efficacy of this framework is tested on 5 parameter pMSSM with Higgs and flavor physics data and its performance is compared with the MCMC method. We further add dark matter (DM) observables to make the task more challenging and consider a 9 parameter pMSSM. We observe that even though the efficiency factor drops, the amortized SBI method still produces faithful posterior distributions. SBI predicted points satisfying DM constraints are mostly bino-dominated upto $\sim$ 1.5 TeV, and are mostly wino-dominated within the 1.5 - 2 TeV range.
Submitted
17 February 20251 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2502.11928
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.