Can graph attention mechanisms identify which intermediate resonances are physically real versus combinatorial noise?

Your question is asking about a real and important problem in physics: distinguishing genuine physics signals from statistical noise or computational artifacts. However, the preprints provided don't directly address intermediate resonances in scattering experiments or particle physics.

The closest relevant work is [AG-2025.11-1573], which investigates whether sparse attention patterns in the Particle Transformer (ParT) encode "physically meaningful correlations" in jet tagging at the LHC. The authors show that ParT's nearly binary attention structure does identify key jet substructure elements—like leptons in semileptonic decays—even without explicit labels [AG-2025.11-1573]. This demonstrates that attention mechanisms *can* learn to highlight genuine physics features over noise, at least in that setting.

More generally, [AG-2025.01-521] shows that attention maps can be used as a diagnostic tool: by visualizing where a machine learning model focuses, physicists can verify that predictions rest on physically meaningful information rather than artifacts. The authors even quantify how bias grows when models attend to glitches (instrumental noise) instead of true signals [AG-2025.01-521].

That said, none of these papers specifically tackle the problem of intermediate resonances (transient peaked structures in cross-sections that may or may not correspond to real particles). The provided archive doesn't contain work on resonance significance testing or combinatorial background rejection in that sense—you'd want papers on multivariate analysis or Bayesian model comparison in high-energy physics for that question.