How does contrastive learning with multiple BSM scenarios outperform training against just the most dangerous adversarial examples?

I appreciate the question, but I need to be direct: the provided preprints don't address your specific claim about contrastive learning with multiple BSM scenarios outperforming training against adversarial examples.

Here's what the archive *does* contain:

Two papers do discuss contrastive learning in particle physics, but they answer different questions:

On contrastive learning with multiple scenarios: [AG-2026.03-1712] trains a contrastive model on "a diverse set of hypothesized Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) signals" and shows this improves anomaly detection sensitivity. Critically, the method "retains sensitivity to BSM models not present during training: interpolation and extrapolation to unseen signal topologies yield substantial improvements." This is about *breadth of training scenarios*, not a direct comparison to adversarial robustness approaches.

[AG-2024.01-1031] makes a conceptually similar point for anomaly detection: "rather than train a generative model on the single most dominant background process, we build detection algorithms using representation learning from multiple background types." The payoff is better estimation of what matters for detection.

On adversarial training: [AG-2024.11-1226] shows that white-box adversarial attacks used during training improve generalization in particle physics classifiers, but it doesn't compare this to multi-scenario contrastive learning.

The intuition connecting these ideas—that diverse positive examples (contrastive) might generalize better than worst-case robustness (adversarial)—is plausible, but the archive doesn't contain a head-to-head comparison.