How does the detector's performance degrade as true signals move further from the training distribution's convex hull?

Your question asks about *out-of-distribution degradation*—a real concern in anomaly detection for physics—but the provided preprints don't directly measure how detector performance falls off as signals move away from the training convex hull.

That said, the archive does offer relevant context. The core tension appears in [AG-2026.03-1712]: when using contrastive learning on a diverse set of simulated beyond-Standard-Model signals, the method achieves "high-fidelity density estimation" *for signals represented in the contrastive training data*, but crucially it "retains sensitivity to BSM models not present during training: interpolation and extrapolation to unseen signal topologies yield substantial improvements." This suggests the latent space can generalize beyond its training boundary, though the paper doesn't quantify the degradation curve.

More directly relevant is [AG-2024.01-1031], which emphasizes robustness by training on *multiple* background types rather than a single dominant one—the intuition being that a broader training distribution (a larger convex hull) reduces vulnerability to out-of-distribution signals. The paper frames this as addressing "a more complete definition of robustness," implying that narrower training sets are indeed fragile.

The challenge is highlighted in [AG-2025.11-1368]: choosing "the best anomaly detector for a given data set in a model-agnostic way" remains open, and performance metrics like binary cross-entropy fail to reliably predict which detector will generalize well—hinting that quantifying out-of-distribution decay is still an unsolved measurement problem.

None of these preprints directly characterizes the functional form (linear, exponential, phase-transition?) of performance degradation as you move away from the training hull's boundary.