What happens to surrogate accuracy when detector geometry drifts beyond its training distribution?

# Surrogate Accuracy Under Geometry Distribution Shift

Your question touches on a critical practical problem: what happens to machine-learned detector surrogates when the physical geometry drifts away from what they were trained on?

The short answer is that surrogates degrade gracefully if you don't retrain them, but transfer learning can recover most of the lost accuracy with far fewer new samples than training from scratch.

Direct Evidence from Transfer Learning Studies

When a surrogate encounters a geometry outside its training distribution, performance drops—but not catastrophically. The key insight comes from cross-detector transfer learning. One study demonstrated that a particle-flow reconstruction model pretrained on the CLIC detector maintained enough learned structure that fine-tuning on a *different* detector design (CLD) with only 100,000 samples achieved the same performance as training from scratch on 1 million CLD samples [AG-2025.02-1472]. This represents roughly a 10× reduction in required data.

More dramatically, a transfer learning framework for calorimeter shower simulation showed a 44% improvement in Wasserstein distance (a measure of how well the surrogate matches true shower distributions) when adapting across diverse geometries using only 100 target-domain samples, compared to training from scratch on that limited data [AG-2025.11-1571]. This matters because detector geometry changes are common in collider physics—different experiments and future designs require new surrogates, and retraining from zero is expensive.

Why Surrogates Survive Geometry Drift

The transfer learning success suggests that surrogates learn *physics* that generalizes, not just geometry-specific artifacts. When using point cloud representations (which encode particle positions without assuming a fixed voxel grid), the learned representations of particle shower development remain valid even when the detector layout changes [AG-2025.11-1571]. Adaptation methods like bias-only fine-tuning—updating just 17% of model parameters—can align the surrogate to the new geometry without forgetting the underlying physics.

However, large geometry drifts will still degrade accuracy without any adaptation [AG-2025.02-1472]. The further you move from the training geometry, the worse the surrogate performs. At some point, retraining becomes necessary.

The Validation Problem

A subtler risk: even if a surrogate *appears* accurate on a drifted geometry, it might be silently wrong. The SURF validation framework revealed that some generative surrogates can "unphysically exaggerate" certain separation powers when evaluated outside their domain [AG-2025.11-1399]—meaning they produce plausible-looking but incorrect results. This argues for always validating surrogates against high-level physics observables, not just reconstruction metrics, when geometry changes.

---

The provided preprints directly address transfer learning and adaptation but don't quantify the *maximum* geometry drift a surrogate tolerates before requiring retraining; that would require additional studies.