跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2610.37137 · v1

What the Primary Lund Plane Omits: A Model-Stitching Diagnosis of a Jet-Tagger Representation Gap

首次提交 2026-10-27 20:34
版本更新 2026-10-27 20:34
雷达观测 2026-10-29 00:35
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Lund-plane and Particle Transformer (ParT) jet taggers can differ in performance because one representation is weaker, or because a weaker downstream computation reads an adequate one. Standalone performance cannot separate these. Model stitching can: it links the frozen early layers of one network to the frozen late layers of another through a single trained linear map. As a positive control we use an incomplete Lund representation, the primary declustering branch, whose deficit is known independently. Stitched into ParT's downstream, it reaches a background rejection at least as much as its own downstream recovers, yet far below ParT's background rejection: the deficit is representational, not computational. A hypergraph reader over splitting triplets does no better, ruling out higher-order correlations as the cause. The gap is invisible in AUC, which stays within 1\% of its target value, and appears only in background rejection at low signal efficiency. It localizes to 0.6\% of background jets, at and above the top mass, with more constituents but fewer primary splittings than typical background. Rebuilding the representation on the full Cambridge/Aachen declustering tree repairs the deficit as predicted: standalone rejection rises, closing 72\% of the gap. Masking nodes at inference shows the repaired network still relies almost entirely on the primary branch; the secondary splittings make the representation learnable rather than supplying information it reads. Along the primary branch, the widest-angle splitting, near the top and $W$ opening angles, is worth nearly twice a random one. For quark/gluon tagging the primary branch is far less deficient, retaining 77.6\% of ParT's rejection (46.9\% for top), and the full tree closes only 33\% of the gap (72\% for top).

作者备注:21 Pages, 16 Figures and 13 Tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-10-27 20:34 · 最新观测版本

What the Primary Lund Plane Omits: A Model-Stitching Diagnosis of a Jet-Tagger Representation Gap

Lund-plane and Particle Transformer (ParT) jet taggers can differ in performance because one representation is weaker, or because a weaker downstream computation reads an adequate one. Standalone performance cannot separate these. Model stitching can: it links the frozen early layers of one network to the frozen late layers of another through a single trained linear map. As a positive control we use an incomplete Lund representation, the primary declustering branch, whose deficit is known independently. Stitched into ParT's downstream, it reaches a background rejection at least as much as its own downstream recovers, yet far below ParT's background rejection: the deficit is representational, not computational. A hypergraph reader over splitting triplets does no better, ruling out higher-order correlations as the cause. The gap is invisible in AUC, which stays within 1\% of its target value, and appears only in background rejection at low signal efficiency. It localizes to 0.6\% of background jets, at and above the top mass, with more constituents but fewer primary splittings than typical background. Rebuilding the representation on the full Cambridge/Aachen declustering tree repairs the deficit as predicted: standalone rejection rises, closing 72\% of the gap. Masking nodes at inference shows the repaired network still relies almost entirely on the primary branch; the secondary splittings make the representation learnable rather than supplying information it reads. Along the primary branch, the widest-angle splitting, near the top and $W$ opening angles, is worth nearly twice a random one. For quark/gluon tagging the primary branch is far less deficient, retaining 77.6\% of ParT's rejection (46.9\% for top), and the full tree closes only 33\% of the gap (72\% for top).

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗