Skip to content

NotablePeer-reviewed

Foundation model for particle collision data analysis

Pretrained on 500 million simulated collisions, one model handles new searches and rediscovers a known particle

ByTing-Hsiang Hsu, Bai-Hong Zhou, Qibin Liu, Yue Xu, Shu Li, George Wei-Shu Hou and 2 others

University of Washington · SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory · Stanford University · Nagoya University and 1 more

25th of 40 papers scored this week on Frontier.

What it is

Collider experiments usually optimise a separate model for each analysis. EVENET is instead an event-level foundation model, pretrained on 500 million simulated collision events with self-supervised learning and physics-informed supervision, that builds one shared representation from the variable-length set of physics objects in each event and is then fine-tuned for each task. Across searches for heavy resonances and exotic Higgs decays it outperformed established and state-of-the-art baselines, particularly when training data were scarce. In an exotic Higgs search it reached a sensitivity score of 4.1, against 1.6 for the same network trained from scratch and 1.4 for SPANet, and with only 5% of the reference training set it already beat the best results both baselines reached with 150%. On real data it rediscovered the Upsilon meson in CMS Open Data, with a median local significance of 7.6 sigma against the 6.4 sigma of a published earlier search. In simulated top-quark-pair events it also extracted a quantum-correlation observable to a precision near 3.33%, about 37% better than a 5.26% benchmark, and stable under the tested systematic variations.

Fig. 1 of the paper: Overview of the EVENET model architecture and tasks.
Fig. 1 from the paperOverview of the EVENET model architecture and tasks.Ting-Hsiang Hsu et al., Nature Machine Intelligence (2026), under CC BY 4.0, shown unaltered.

Why it matters

Collider analyses usually train a new model for every search; this one backbone, pretrained once, adapted to tasks it never saw in pretraining and to real CMS data. Across a grid of 121 mass points for a heavy new particle decaying to a lighter one and a Higgs boson, it gave the highest sensitivity over most of the grid and matched the tabular baselines elsewhere, improving the best sensitivity on average by about 50% over the same network trained from scratch, 20% over XGBoost and 10% over the tabular foundation model TabPFN. The authors present it as a reusable backbone for diverse collider analyses, paid for once: pretraining took of the order of 100,000 GPU-hours on 512 A100 GPUs, before counting the generation of the simulated events. The model, its weights and its pretraining data are public.

Underlined numbers link to their source. Every metric and quoted figure is listed under Sources and data below.

Filed underParticle physics theoretical and experimental studies, High-Energy Particle Collisions Research, Particle Detector Development and Performance

Scored 2026-11-13How scoring works

The Frontier Score, in full

How this entry's score is built, term by term. Open any pillar to see each sub-metric's raw value, how it maps to 0 to 100, and a link to its source (OpenAlex for most sub-metrics that combine several sources, NIH iCite where its ratio is part of field-normalized impact).
Evidence 88Impact 52Novelty 60
The three pillars as one shape: a result strong on every axis fills the triangle.
How the Frontier Score is calculated for this breakthrough
TermScoreWeightPoints
EvidenceHow established and verifiable the result is.88× 0.2522.0
ImpactHow much the result matters, judged field-relative and by current momentum.52× 0.2513.1
NoveltyHow genuinely new the result is, and how fast-moving.60× 0.5030.1
Weighted pillars65.2
Frontier recency0 months since publication× 0.98
IntegrityNot retracted× 1
Frontier Score64
Confidence: Early signal. Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up.Early signal: little citation history yet, so impact is an estimate and may shift as the work is taken up.

Every sub-metric, traced to its source

Evidence88
Evidence sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Peer review & venueWhether the work has cleared peer review, and how selective its venue is. Peer review is necessary but not sufficient: before citations accrue, a fresh result in one of the five general flagships (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) is a stronger evidence signal than one in a selective specialist or society journal, which in turn outranks one in a legitimate but very high-volume mega-journal, and any of them outranks a preprint that has not been reviewed at all.Maps to 0 to 100: Peer-reviewed article graded by venue tier: flagship journal (Nature, Science, Cell, NEJM, the Lancet) 100; selective journal (every other journal the index admits: the specialist journals of those families, JAMA, PNAS, Physical Review Letters and X) 90; high-volume mega-journal (Nature Communications, Science Advances) 78; venue not recorded 88. Other records: review 90, book 70, dataset 60, preprint 45, an article that has not been peer reviewed 45, other 55.Peer-reviewed, selective journal900.3027.0OpenAlex type / primary_location / source
CorroborationIndependent corroboration that the result is on the record and reaching beyond a single source, read as the BREADTH of independent records rather than the size of the citation pile. Counts how many of the five independent citation indices (OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC) report a citation count for the work at all, zero included, plus orthogonal, non-citation lines of corroboration: citation in Wikipedia, registered clinical trials or clinical citations, released datasets or software or a repository copy, public funding on record, and technical-community discussion. Citation MAGNITUDE is deliberately judged under Impact, not here, so Evidence and Impact measure genuinely different things instead of both rewarding the same citation pile twice.Maps to 0 to 100: Starts at 28 and rises by 9 for each of the five independent citation indices that returns a citation count for the work (zero counts; OpenCitations returns zero even for a DOI it does not hold) and by 6 for each orthogonal non-citation line (Wikipedia, clinical trials or clinical citations, open datasets, software or a repository copy, public funding, community discussion), up to the top of the 0-100 scale.4 of 5 citation indices report a count, 1 independent non-citation line700.3021.0OpenAlex, Crossref, Semantic Scholar, OpenCitations, Europe PMC, DataCite, NIH RePORTER, Wikipedia, Hacker News count of indices that report a count for the work + orthogonal reach
VerifiabilityHow openly the result can be read, reused, and reproduced. Rewards open access, a Creative Commons BY or CC0 license, a green repository copy anyone can archive, openly minable full text, and released datasets or software a reader can actually run. Cross-checked across OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, and DataCite.Maps to 0 to 100: Closed access 45; open access 88; any Creative Commons BY license (including the NC, ND and SA variants) or CC0 100. A repository copy raises the floor to 85, openly minable full text to 90, and released data or software to 92.Open access (hybrid), CC-BY, repository copy1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Unpaywall, Europe PMC, DataCite is_oa / license / has_repository_copy / open datasets
IntegrityRetraction and post-publication correction status. A retracted result is not evidence of anything and collapses the whole Frontier Score; a correction or expression of concern is a softer flag. A correction the publisher labels as its own error (a Publisher Correction) is not a flag on the work. Read across OpenAlex and Crossref (both update-to and updated-by notices).Maps to 0 to 100: Clean 100 (also when the only notice is a Publisher Correction); a correction or expression of concern 75; retracted 0. Flagged if OpenAlex OR Crossref records the notice.No retraction or concern on record1000.2020.0OpenAlex, Crossref is_retracted / update-to / updated-by
Impact52
Impact sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Field-normalized impactImpact relative to the world average for the same field, year, and type, so a small field and a large field are judged fairly. Triangulates three independent field-normalized measures: OpenAlex's Field-Weighted Citation Impact, its citation percentile within the exact field-and-year cohort, and the NIH iCite Relative Citation Ratio. 1.0x is average; the percentile is the share of same-field, same-year work it out-cites.Maps to 0 to 100: Each ratio (1.0 = field average) maps 1.0 to 50, 3.0 to 75, 9.0 to 90; the field+year percentile maps directly (top 1% -> ~99). The available measures are averaged. When none is available yet (very recent work), this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.9.3x FWCI, top 2% of field-year vs field940.4542.4OpenAlex, NIH iCite fwci / citation_normalized_percentile / relative_citation_ratio
Influential citationsCitations that genuinely build on the work rather than mention it in passing (Semantic Scholar's influential-citation measure). A sharper signal of real impact than a raw count.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 15 influential citations maps to 50, and none maps to 0. When Semantic Scholar has no measure for the work, this sub-metric is left out and Impact is computed from the others.0 influential00.200.0Semantic Scholar influentialCitationCount
Citation velocityCitations received in the trailing twelve months (estimated from yearly citation counts: this year's so far plus the share of last year's that falls inside the window), judged as a rate rather than a lifetime total. Momentum is what a frontier index cares about: a result being taken up fast right now is landing, whether its lifetime pile is large or still small. Where an expected field citation rate is known, the momentum is also read relative to it, so a fast-moving result in a quiet field is not overlooked.Maps to 0 to 100: Saturating: 30 citations in the last twelve months maps to 50. When NIH iCite provides the field's expected rate, this is blended evenly with the ratio of observed to expected momentum.12 in last 12 months290.3510.0OpenAlex, NIH iCite counts_by_year / field_citation_rate
Novelty60
Novelty sub-metrics
Sub-metricRaw value0 to 100WeightPointsSource
Conceptual noveltyHow genuinely new the contribution is, measured at publication from the work's OWN content, not its date: how atypical its combination of research areas is versus all prior work, and whether it builds on a broad, deep base rather than only the newest papers in a fast-moving area. This is what separates a real advance from a recent-but-commodity result, and it needs no forward citations, so it is stable for brand-new work. An honestly noisy proxy (even state-of-the-art novelty measures agree only moderately with expert judgment), so it carries bounded weight and never drives the ranking alone.Maps to 0 to 100: Two publication-time signals, each 0-100. The primary one is atypical combination: how unusual the work's median pairing of research topics is versus the prior literature, by pointwise mutual information (a pairing made far more often than chance scores low). The second, foundational reach (the median age of the work's references and the share older than five years), can only lift it: when reach is higher, the score rises by 35% of the gap, and it is never lowered. When only one signal is measurable it is used alone; when neither is (a work too thin in topics or references), this sub-metric is left out and Novelty is computed from the other three. A review is damped to 60%.Median topic pairing Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies x Particle Detector Development and Performance (147,339 prior works made this pairing); builds on refs a median 4.3y deep310.4514.0OpenAlex topics + referenced_works (publication-time)
RecencyHow recently the work appeared. The frontier is now, so newer scores higher.Maps to 0 to 100: Exponential decay with a 12-month half-life from the publication date.This month970.3029.2OpenAlex publication_date
Attention accelerationWhether attention is rising: citations in the latest full year versus the year before. Accelerating interest signals an active, opening frontier.Maps to 0 to 100: Latest/prior-year ratio: 1x maps to 50, 2x to 75, 4x to 100. The prior year counts as at least 3 citations, so a jump from one citation to a few is not read as explosive growth. With no citations in the latest full year it reads as unknown, and unknown is neutral (50).Not enough history500.105.0OpenAlex counts_by_year
Edge of reviewPreprints sit ahead of the peer-review process and brand-new papers have only just cleared it. Both earn novelty here (while a preprint is discounted under Evidence), because that is where the frontier forms first.Maps to 0 to 100: Preprint 95; any other record 80 when under 6 months old, 65 under 18 months, 45 after that.Peer-reviewed record800.1512.0OpenAlex type / publication_date
ProvenanceAll sources

Sources and data

The source figures behind this entry, grouped by the source that holds them: up to five citation indices cross-checked, field-normalized impact, then real-world reach (Wikipedia, community discussion, clinical trials, released data and public funding) where it exists. Each value links to its record.

OpenAlex

Primary record
Total citations
12
Field-weighted citation impact
9.3x field average
Citation percentile
Top 2% of its field-year
Citations, recent 12 months
12
Publication date
2026-10-29

Crossref

Citations
0
Works it builds on
88

Semantic Scholar

Citations, all versions
13
Influential citations
0

OpenCitations

Citations
0

Unpaywall

Reuse license
CC-BY

Figures quoted in the write-up

FigureValueSource
Simulated collision events used for pretraining (Abstract; Methods: about 3 × 10^9 simulated Standard Model events generated, about 5 × 10^8 retained after preselections)500 million simulated collision eventsNature Machine Intelligence
Sensitivity in the exotic Higgs search, EVENET (Results: maximum significance improvement characteristic at the representative pseudoscalar mass of 30 GeV, classification head)SIC = 4.1Nature Machine Intelligence
Benchmark precision (Results: a published simulation-based analysis)the 5.26% benchmark in ref. 60Nature Machine Intelligence
Mass hypotheses in the heavy-resonance grid (Methods: X to Y plus a Standard Model Higgs, in fully simulated CMS Open Data)121 mass points spanning the (mX, mY) planeNature Machine Intelligence
Average sensitivity gain over training from scratch (Results: maximum SIC averaged across the grid, individual fine-tuning)approximately 50% relative to EVENET-ScratchNature Machine Intelligence
Average sensitivity gain over XGBoost (Results: XGBoost is an established method in high-energy physics)20% relative to XGBoostNature Machine Intelligence
Average sensitivity gain over TabPFN (Results: TabPFN is a pretrained foundation model for tabular classification)10% relative to TabPFNNature Machine Intelligence
Pretraining compute (Methods: model training only, excluding event generation and preprocessing)approximately O(10^5) GPU-hoursNature Machine Intelligence
GPUs used for pretraining (Methods: on the Perlmutter supercomputer at NERSC)512 NVIDIA A100 GPUsNature Machine Intelligence
Pseudoscalar mass in the exotic Higgs study (Methods: simulated signal and multijet background samples)ma = 30 GeVNature Machine Intelligence
Sensitivity in the exotic Higgs search, trained from scratch (Results: the same architecture without pretraining)1.6 for scratchNature Machine Intelligence
Sensitivity in the exotic Higgs search, SPANet (Results: SPANet is a state-of-the-art transformer for joint particle assignment and classification)1.4 for SPANetNature Machine Intelligence
Training data at which EVENET beat the baselines (Results: the reference dataset for the exotic Higgs search is 200,000 events)With 5% of the reference dataset, it reaches SIC = 1.7Nature Machine Intelligence
Training data for the baselines' peak values (Results: exotic Higgs search)both baselines' peak values at 150% of the reference datasetNature Machine Intelligence
Significance of the rediscovered Upsilon in CMS Open Data (Results: calibrated EVENET in the opposite-sign dimuon configuration, 2016 CMS Open Data; the OS to SS and SS to SS control configurations were compatible with zero significance)median local significance of 7.6 (+0.4/-0.4) sigmaNature Machine Intelligence
Significance in the earlier published search (Results: Gambhir et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 021902 (2025), reference 44 of the paper)the published 6.4σNature Machine Intelligence
Precision of the quantum-correlation measurement (Results: precision of the entanglement-sensitive observable in simulated dileptonic top-quark pairs)saturates near 3.33%Nature Machine Intelligence
Improvement over the benchmark (Results)approximately 37% betterNature Machine Intelligence
For the authors

Show this score where your work lives

A badge for your lab page, your CV or the paper's code repository. It links readers to this entry, and it always carries the entry's current score.
This paper's Frontier Score badge, as it appears where you place itLive preview
<a href="https://frontierresearch.co/breakthroughs/foundation-model-for-particle-collision-data-analysis-w7125872584?utm_source=badge&amp;utm_medium=badge&amp;utm_campaign=author-kit"><img src="https://frontierresearch.co/api/badge/W7125872584.svg" alt="Frontier Score for this paper" height="20"></a>

For a lab or personal website, a CV page, or anywhere that takes HTML.

The number is live. The badge is drawn from the same signals as this page, so it never shows a score the entry does not. Every entry is re-checked weekly against the same public sources, and a result's standing eases as it ages, so the active edge of the field stays on top. How scoring works

Your other papers. The free paper check shows any paper's field-weighted citation impact, its citations in five open indexes and any retraction on record, whether or not it is in the index, and the researcher check does it for your whole record from your ORCID iD.

Something wrong or out of date? Write to hello@frontierresearch.co and the entry will be corrected.

AI & ComputingThe whole field

Back to the Frontier Index, or browse every breakthrough by date.

The Frontier Brief

The week's AI & Computing, scored.

Every Monday, up to six of the week's new AI & Computing entries in the index, each with its score and a one-line read on why it matters, then the week's best from the rest of the frontier. What you get

Prefer a feed reader? Follow AI & Computing by RSS

One email a week: up to six of the week's new AI & Computing entries, scored, then the best elsewhere. Unsubscribe anytime.