Comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection

Abstract Anomaly detection techniques are growing in importance at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), motivated by the increasing need to search for new physics in a model-agnostic way. In this work, we provide a detailed comparative study between a well-studied unsupervised method called the autoenco...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jack H. Collins, Pablo Martín-Ramiro, Benjamin Nachman, David Shih
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: SpringerOpen 2021-07-01
Series:European Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09389-x
id doaj-aa8f02276723456e8c96d9dd2edfdbcf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-aa8f02276723456e8c96d9dd2edfdbcf2021-07-18T11:14:36ZengSpringerOpenEuropean Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields1434-60441434-60522021-07-0181712010.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09389-xComparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detectionJack H. Collins0Pablo Martín-Ramiro1Benjamin Nachman2David Shih3SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, Stanford UniversityInstituto de Física Teórica, IFT-UAM/CSIC, Universidad Autónoma de MadridPhysics Division, Lawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryNHETC, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers UniversityAbstract Anomaly detection techniques are growing in importance at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), motivated by the increasing need to search for new physics in a model-agnostic way. In this work, we provide a detailed comparative study between a well-studied unsupervised method called the autoencoder (AE) and a weakly-supervised approach based on the Classification Without Labels (CWoLa) technique. We examine the ability of the two methods to identify a new physics signal at different cross sections in a fully hadronic resonance search. By construction, the AE classification performance is independent of the amount of injected signal. In contrast, the CWoLa performance improves with increasing signal abundance. When integrating these approaches with a complete background estimate, we find that the two methods have complementary sensitivity. In particular, CWoLa is effective at finding diverse and moderately rare signals while the AE can provide sensitivity to very rare signals, but only with certain topologies. We therefore demonstrate that both techniques are complementary and can be used together for anomaly detection at the LHC.https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09389-x
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jack H. Collins
Pablo Martín-Ramiro
Benjamin Nachman
David Shih
spellingShingle Jack H. Collins
Pablo Martín-Ramiro
Benjamin Nachman
David Shih
Comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection
European Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields
author_facet Jack H. Collins
Pablo Martín-Ramiro
Benjamin Nachman
David Shih
author_sort Jack H. Collins
title Comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection
title_short Comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection
title_full Comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection
title_fullStr Comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection
title_full_unstemmed Comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection
title_sort comparing weak- and unsupervised methods for resonant anomaly detection
publisher SpringerOpen
series European Physical Journal C: Particles and Fields
issn 1434-6044
1434-6052
publishDate 2021-07-01
description Abstract Anomaly detection techniques are growing in importance at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), motivated by the increasing need to search for new physics in a model-agnostic way. In this work, we provide a detailed comparative study between a well-studied unsupervised method called the autoencoder (AE) and a weakly-supervised approach based on the Classification Without Labels (CWoLa) technique. We examine the ability of the two methods to identify a new physics signal at different cross sections in a fully hadronic resonance search. By construction, the AE classification performance is independent of the amount of injected signal. In contrast, the CWoLa performance improves with increasing signal abundance. When integrating these approaches with a complete background estimate, we find that the two methods have complementary sensitivity. In particular, CWoLa is effective at finding diverse and moderately rare signals while the AE can provide sensitivity to very rare signals, but only with certain topologies. We therefore demonstrate that both techniques are complementary and can be used together for anomaly detection at the LHC.
url https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-021-09389-x
work_keys_str_mv AT jackhcollins comparingweakandunsupervisedmethodsforresonantanomalydetection
AT pablomartinramiro comparingweakandunsupervisedmethodsforresonantanomalydetection
AT benjaminnachman comparingweakandunsupervisedmethodsforresonantanomalydetection
AT davidshih comparingweakandunsupervisedmethodsforresonantanomalydetection
_version_ 1721296369411424256