Comparing Generative Models with the New Physics Learning Machine
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
The rise of generative models for scientific research calls for the development of new methods to evaluate their fidelity. A natural framework for addressing this problem is two-sample hypothesis testing, namely the task of determining whether two data sets are drawn from the same distribution. In large-scale and high-dimensional regimes, machine learning offers a set of tools to push beyond the limitations of standard statistical techniques. In this work, we put this claim to the test by comparing a recent proposal from the high-energy physics literature, the New Physics Learning Machine, to perform a classification-based two-sample test against a number of alternative approaches, following the framework presented in Grossi et al. (2025). We highlight the efficiency tradeoffs of the method and the computational costs that come from adopting learning-based approaches. Finally, we discuss the advantages of the different methods for different use cases.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 9 of its 26 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2025.
Builds on
9 of 26 references.
References · 9
- 2015Less is More: Nystr"om Computational Regularizationcited by 91
- 2020Kernel methods through the roof: handling billions of points efficientlycited by 89
- 2024CaloChallenge 2022: A Community Challenge for Fast Calorimeter Simulationcited by 35
- 2022Evaluating generative models in high energy physicscited by 31
- 2022Learning new physics efficiently with nonparametric methodscited by 21
- 2023Goodness of fit by Neyman-Pearson testingcited by 10
- 2024Refereeing the Referees: Evaluating Two-Sample Tests for Validating Generators in Precision Sciencescited by 9
- 2023Fast kernel methods for Data Quality Monitoring as a goodness-of-fit testcited by 8
- 2024Multiple testing for signal-agnostic searches of new physics with machine learningcited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 2.
4 papers.
- 2025Learning to Validate Generative Models: a Goodness-of-Fit Approachcited by 4
- 2025Forecasting Generative Amplificationcited by 3
- 2026Model-Agnostic Signal Discovery with Machine Learning: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practicecited by 3
- 2026Generative Models and Statistical Validationcited by 2
- 2026Model-Agnostic Signal Discovery with Machine Learning: Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice29 May 2026
- 2026Generative Models and Statistical Validation28 May 2026
- 2025Learning to Validate Generative Models: a Goodness-of-Fit Approach12 Nov 2025
- 2025Forecasting Generative Amplification9 Sep 2025