Could ML surrogates trained on LHC data generalize to beyond-Standard-Model particles they've never seen?

This is a genuinely hard question that the archive addresses head-on, and the honest answer is: not reliably, unless the surrogate is carefully validated.

The core tension appears in two complementary ways:

First, generalization to unseen BSM particles is fragile. A classifier trained on LHC data to distinguish Standard Model backgrounds from one specific new particle (say, a leptoquark) will likely fail catastrophically when confronted with a different BSM signature it has never seen [AG-2024.11-1157]. The models achieve >94% AUC on their training BSM scenario, but that high performance is specific to that particular signal. The underlying issue is that neural networks are excellent interpolators but poor extrapolators—they learn the phenomenological fingerprints of particles they've encountered, not the general structure of "new physics."

However, there's a promising middle ground: validated surrogates with uncertainty quantification. The Classifier Surrogates framework uses Continuous Normalizing Flows trained via Conditional Flow Matching to approximate collider classifiers, and crucially, they extend these models with Bayesian uncertainty estimates [AG-2024.02-1165]. This is the key insight: a well-built surrogate doesn't pretend to know what it doesn't. When you ask it to classify a jet from a particle it was never trained on, the uncertainty bands widen, signaling "I'm operating outside my training regime."

The SURF validation method goes further, providing a rigorous way to test whether a generative surrogate correctly captures the underlying data distribution using exact Neyman-Pearson tests [AG-2025.11-1399]. This matters because a surrogate that *looks* good but misses subtle correlations in the data will give false confidence when asked about new physics.

**What *can* transfer across BSM models is the learned *latent structure*. A unified latent space trained on multiple BSM theories simultaneously can cluster models by their LHC phenomenology, with distinct new physics appearing in distinct regions [AG-2024.07-1501]. This doesn't let you identify a particle you've never seen, but it tells you which corner of theory-space your data is pointing toward.

The practical path forward for genuine BSM discovery** involves training surrogates on Standard Model processes and a *portfolio* of BSM benchmarks, then using model discrimination and anomaly detection rather than simple classification [AG-2024.07-1501]. For truly exotic signatures (like non-helical tracks from quirks), ML-based approaches can learn to reconstruct the signature without predefining what "normal" looks like [AG-2024.09-1418], though again, this works best when you have some theoretical guidance about what to look for.

In short: ML surrogates trained on LHC data can generalize to *classes* of beyond-SM physics they resemble, but not to fundamentally new signatures—unless you build in explicit uncertainty and use them as exploratory tools rather than discovery machines.