How would contrastive latent spaces trained on prompt decays generalize to detecting long-lived particle signatures?

This is a thoughtful technical question, but the provided preprints don't directly address how contrastive latent spaces trained on prompt-decay data would extrapolate to long-lived particle (LLP) signatures.

That said, I can sketch the underlying physics from what's here:

What the archive shows about each piece:

Contrastive latent spaces for anomaly detection work by learning a low-dimensional, signal-sensitive representation of particle events [AG-2026.03-1712]. The key strength is that they retain sensitivity to *unseen* signal topologies through interpolation and extrapolation—meaning a latent space trained on one class of beyond-Standard-Model signals can generalize to others not in the training set.

Long-lived particles produce qualitatively different detector signatures than prompt decays: displaced vertices, delayed timing, or signatures in far-forward regions [AG-2024.07-1469, AG-2025.02-1334]. Deep learning has proven effective at extracting these exotic topologies—achieving 95% signal efficiency on nanosecond-scale LLPs while rejecting all backgrounds [AG-2024.01-937].

The gap:

Prompt and long-lived decay topologies are structurally distinct. A latent space optimized for prompt final states (diphotons, jets, etc.) encodes locality and timing correlations that long-lived particles actively *violate*. The question of whether features learned from prompt decays transfer to detecting delayed or displaced signatures—especially if LLPs weren't represented during training—is open. You'd likely need either (1) explicit long-lived signal examples in the contrastive training, or (2) a topology-agnostic representation learned from decay tree structure rather than kinematic clusters [AG-2024.02-1078].