Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36212113›Full record

ArticleThe European physical journal. C, Particles and fields2022

Learning new physics efficiently with nonparametric methods.

Marco Letizia, Gianvito Losapio, Marco Rando, Gaia Grosso, Andrea Wulzer, Maurizio Pierini, Marco Zanetti, Lorenzo Rosasco

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The European physical journal. C, Particles and fields, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multiple testing for signal-agnostic searches for new physics with machine learning.The European physical journal. C, Particles and fields · 2025
    Article
  2. Robust resonant anomaly detection with NPLM.The European physical journal. C, Particles and fields · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marco LetiziaMaLGa-DIBRIS, Università di Genova, Genoa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9641-4352
Gianvito LosapioMaLGa-DIBRIS, Università di Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Marco RandoMaLGa-DIBRIS, Università di Genova, Genoa, Italy.
Gaia GrossoDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Padova, Padua, Italy.
Andrea WulzerDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Padova, Padua, Italy.
Maurizio PieriniExperimental Physics Department, CERN, Geneva, Switzerland.
Marco ZanettiDipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, Università di Padova, Padua, Italy.
Lorenzo RosascoMaLGa-DIBRIS, Università di Genova, Genoa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We present a machine learning approach for model-independent new physics searches. The corresponding algorithm is powered by recent large-scale implementations of kernel methods, nonparametric learning algorithms that can approximate any continuous function given enough data. Based on the original proposal by D'Agnolo and Wulzer (Phys Rev D 99(1):015014, 2019, arXiv:1806.02350 [hep-ph]), the model evaluates the compatibility between experimental data and a reference model, by implementing a hypothesis testing procedure based on the likelihood ratio. Model-independence is enforced by avoiding any prior assumption about the presence or shape of new physics components in the measurements. We show that our approach has dramatic advantages compared to neural network implementations in terms of training times and computational resources, while maintaining comparable performances. In particular, we conduct our tests on higher dimensional datasets, a step forward with respect to previous studies.

Identifiers

PMID36212113
PMCPMC9534824

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.