- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Exact inference from noisy simulations in collider physics

Christopher Chang1,*, Benjamin Farmer2,†,∥, Andrew Fowlie3,‡, and Anders Kvellestad1,§

  • *Contact author: c.j.chang@fys.uio.no
  • †Contact author: benf@gridcog.com
  • ‡Contact author: andrew.fowlie@xjtlu.edu.cn
  • §Contact author: anders.kvellestad@fys.uio.no
  • ∥Formerly Department of Physics, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, United Kingdom.
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 113, 072013 – Published 21 April, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/2d39-gsjp

Abstract

We rely on Monte Carlo (MC) simulations to interpret searches for new physics at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and elsewhere. These simulations result in noisy and approximate estimators of selection efficiencies and likelihoods. In this context we pioneer an exact-approximate computational method—exact-approximate Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC), also known as pseudomarginal MCMC—that returns exact inferences despite noisy simulations. To do so, we introduce an unbiased estimator for a Poisson likelihood. We demonstrate the new estimator and new techniques in examples based on a search for neutralinos and charginos at the LHC using a simplified model. We find attractive performance characteristics—exact inferences are obtained for a similar computational cost to approximate ones from existing methods and inferences are robust with respect to the number of events generated per point. The unbiased estimator uses a Poisson-distributed number of MC events; it is also possible to construct a biased estimator whose bias decays factorially with increasing number of MC events.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (55)

  1. S. S. AbdusSalam et al., Simple and statistically sound recommendations for analysing physical theories, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 052201 (2022).
  2. J. Brehmer and K. Cranmer, Simulation-based inference methods for particle physics, in Artificial Intelligence for High Energy Physics (2020), pp. 579–611, arXiv:2010.06439.
  3. I. Volobouev, Matrix element method in HEP: Transfer functions, efficiencies, and likelihood normalization, arXiv:1101.2259.
  4. T. Sjöstrand, S. Ask, J. R. Christiansen, R. Corke, N. Desai, P. Ilten, S. Mrenna, S. Prestel, C. O. Rasmussen, and Peter Z. Skands, An introduction to pythia 8.2, Comput. Phys. Commun. 191, 159 (2015).
  5. M. Bahr et al., herwig++ physics and manual, Eur. Phys. J. C 58, 639 (2008).
  6. Sherpa Collaboration, Event generation with sherpa 2.2, SciPost Phys. 7, 034 (2019).
  7. DELPHES 3 Collaboration, delphes 3, A modular framework for fast simulation of a generic collider experiment, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2014) 057.
  8. R. Brun, F. Bruyant, F. Carminati, S. Giani, M. Maire, A. McPherson et al., geant Detector Description and Simulation Tool, CERN Program Library, Long Writeup (1994) 10.17181/CERN.MUHF.DMJ1.
  9. S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, and X. Meng, Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo (CRC Press, United States, 2011).
  10. I. Murray and M. M. Graham, Pseudomarginal slice sampling, in Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, edited by A. Gretton and C. C. Robert, Vol. 51 of Proc. Mach. Learn. Res. (Cadiz, Spain, 2016), pp. 911–919, arXiv:1510.02958.
  11. GAMBIT Collaboration, colliderbit: A gambit module for the calculation of high-energy collider observables and likelihoods, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 795 (2017).
  12. GAMBIT Collaboration, gambit: The global and modular beyond-the-standard-model inference tool, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 784 (2017).
  13. S. A. Sisson, Y. Fan, and M. A. Beaumont, Overview of approximate Bayesian computation, in Handbook of Approximate Bayesian Computation (Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 2018).
  14. M. A. Beaumont, Estimation of population growth or decline in genetically monitored populations, Genetics 164, 1139 (2003).
  15. J. Møller, A. N. Pettitt, R. Reeves, and K. K. Berthelsen, An efficient Markov Chain Monte Carlo method for distributions with intractable normalising constants, Biometrika 93, 451 (2006).
  16. C. Andrieu and G. O. Roberts, The pseudomarginal approach for efficient Monte Carlo computations, Ann. Stat. 37, 697 (2009).
  17. L. Lin, K. F. Liu, and J. H. Sloan, A stochastic Monte Carlo algorithm, Phys. Rev. D 61, 074505 (2000).
  18. H. Dembinski and M. Schmelling, Bias, variance, and confidence intervals for efficiency estimators in particle physics experiments, arXiv:2110.00294.
  19. A. Doucet, M. Pitt, G. Deligiannidis, and R. Kohn, Efficient implementation of Markov chain Monte Carlo when using an unbiased likelihood estimator, Biometrika 102, 295 (2015).
  20. C. Sherlock, A. H. Thiery, G. O. Roberts, and J. S. Rosenthal, On the efficiency of pseudo-marginal random walk Metropolis algorithms, Ann. Stat. 43, 238 (2015).
  21. C. Andrieu and M. Vihola, Convergence properties of pseudo-marginal Markov Chain Monte Carlo algorithms, Ann. Appl. Probab. 25, 1030 (2015).
  22. C. Sherlock, Optimal scaling for the pseudo-marginal random walk metropolis: Insensitivity to the noise generating mechanism, Methodol. Comput. In Appl. Probab. 18, 869 (2015).
  23. R. J. Barlow and C. Beeston, Fitting using finite Monte Carlo samples, Comput. Phys. Commun. 77, 219 (1993).
  24. C. A. Argüelles, A. Schneider, and T. Yuan, Tackling limited simulation and small signals, Proc. Sci. ICRC2019 (2020) 1005 [arXiv:1907.10636].
  25. H. P. Dembinski and A. Abdelmotteleb, A new maximum-likelihood method for template fits, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 1043 (2022).
  26. C.-A. Alexe, J. Bendavid, L. Bianchini, and D. Bruschini, Under-coverage in high-statistics counting experiments with finite MC samples, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res., Sect. A 1086, 171360 (2026).
  27. D. Chirkin, Likelihood Description for Comparing Data to Simulation of Limited Statistics, in International Cosmic Ray Conference, Vol. 33 of International Cosmic Ray Conference (2013), p. 3406, .
  28. R. Aggarwal and A. Caldwell, Error bars for distributions of numbers of events, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 127, 24 (2012).
  29. T. Glüsenkamp, Probabilistic treatment of the uncertainty from the finite size of weighted Monte Carlo data, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133, 218 (2018).
  30. T. Glüsenkamp, A unified perspective on modified Poisson likelihoods for limited Monte Carlo data, J. Instrum. 15, P01035 (2020).
  31. C. A. Argüelles, A. Schneider, and T. Yuan, A binned likelihood for stochastic models, J. High Energy Phys. 06 (2019) 030.
  32. S. Liu and C. McGrew, Binned likelihood including Monte Carlo statistical uncertainty in Bayesian inference, arXiv:2304.05433.
  33. G. J. Glasser, Minimum variance unbiased estimators for Poisson probabilities, Technometrics 4, 409 (1962).
  34. E. L. Lehmann, Estimation with inadequate information, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 78, 624 (1983).
  35. E. L. Lehmann, Theory of Point Estimation, 2nd ed. (Springer, New York, 1998).
  36. M. Kendall, A. Stuart, and J. Ord, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, 4th ed. (MacMillan, London, 1979), Vol. 2.
  37. A.-M. Lyne, M. Girolami, Y. Atchadé, H. Strathmann, and D. Simpson, On Russian roulette estimates for Bayesian inference with doubly-intractable likelihoods, Stat. Sci. 30, 443 (2015).
  38. C. Andrieu and M. Vihola, Establishing some order amongst exact approximations of MCMCs, Ann. Appl. Probab. 26, 2661 (2016).
  39. J. Goodman and J. Weare, Ensemble samplers with affine invariance, Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. 5, 65 (2010).
  40. D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013).
  41. R. Kumar, C. Carroll, A. Hartikainen, and O. Martin, arviz a unified library for exploratory analysis of Bayesian models in python, J. Open Source Softwaare 4, 1143 (2019).
  42. ATLAS Collaboration, Search for chargino–neutralino pair production in final states with three leptons and missing transverse momentum in s=13  TeV  pp collisions with the ATLAS detector, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 1118 (2021).
  43. G. Alguero, J. Heisig, C. K. Khosa, S. Kraml, S. Kulkarni, A. Lessa, H. Reyes-González, W. Waltenberger, and A. Wongel, Constraining new physics with SModelS version 2, J. High Energy Phys. 08 (2022) 068.
  44. LHC SUSY Cross Section Working Group, NLO-NLL winolike chargino-neutralino (N2C1) cross sections, (2017), https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/LHCPhysics/SUSYCrossSections13TeVn2x1wino.
  45. B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, Gaugino production in proton-proton collisions at a center-of-mass energy of 8 TeV, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2012) 081.
  46. B. Fuks, M. Klasen, D. R. Lamprea, and M. Rothering, Precision predictions for electroweak superpartner production at hadron colliders with resummino, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2480 (2013).
  47. A. Vehtari, A. Gelman, D. Simpson, B. Carpenter, and P.-C. Bürkner, Rank-normalization, folding, and localization: An improved r∧ for assessing convergence of MCMC (with discussion), Bayesian Anal. 16, 667 (2021).
  48. A. N. Kolmogorov, Sulla determinazione empirica di una legge didistribuzione, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att 4, 89 (1933).
  49. N. Smirnov, Table for estimating the goodness of fit of empirical distributions, Ann. Math. Stat. 19, 279 (1948).
  50. P. E. Jacob and A. H. Thiery, On nonnegative unbiased estimators, Ann. Stat. 43, 769 (2015).
  51. I. Kosmidis, Bias in parametric estimation: Reduction and useful side-effects, WIREs Comput. Stat. 6, 185 (2014).
  52. L. Zhenhua, Advanced Statistical Theory I, Lecture Notes (2019), https://blog.nus.edu.sg/zhenhua/files/2020/08/ST5215-lecture-note.pdf.
  53. https://github.com/xhep-lab/ideal.
  54. https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/header/random.
  55. W. Jakob, J. Rhinelander, D. Moldovan et al., pybind11—Seamless operability between c++11 and python, (2017), https://github.com/pybind/pybind11.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 113, 072013– Published 21 April, 2026
  • Received 17 February 2025
  • Accepted 23 March 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation