Covariant Contrastive Learning for Uncertainty-Aware Anomaly Detection

Contrastive learning constructs a latent representation by pulling together the representations of similar examples and pushing apart dissimilar ones. Choosing a latent space with fewer dimensions than the input space also allows this representation to compress the inputs and perform dimensionality reduction. Since the introduction of instance-discrimination frameworks such as SimCLR [13], it has become a standard tool for representation learning. In high energy physics it was first deployed in a self-supervised form to build symmetry-aware jet representations: JetCLR [14] maps jet constituents into a space that is approximately invariant to physically motivated augmentations, later it was used in the context of augmenting simulations to mitigate systematics [15], and closely related self-supervised approaches have since been applied directly to model-agnostic anomaly detection [16]. Building on this line of work, Metzger et al. [6] and related studies [7] established that supervised contrastive losses with physics-process labels produce latent spaces well suited for signal-agnostic AD at the LHC, with domain-knowledge-informed label encoding being the key ingredient for statistical discovery performance. Our encoder is built with exactly this supervised contrastive strategy. None of these works, however, address how systematic uncertainties propagate through the learned embedding once it is used for inference—the gap we fill here.

Controlling how a learned representation responds to a transformation of its input is precisely the subject of equivariant representation learning. Standard contrastive learning enforces invariance, training representations to be unchanged under a chosen set of augmentations. Invariance is a special case of the more general notion of equivariance, in which a transformation of the input induces a corresponding, specified transformation of its representation. Dangovski et al. [17] added an auxiliary prediction task to self-supervised learning based on invariance: identifying the transformation applied to each input. This encourages broken equivariance for some transformations while retaining invariance for others. They showed that this approach improves the semantic quality of the learned representations. We adapt this idea to the physics setting: the transformations of interest are not geometric augmentations but the systematic distortions of the observables parameterized by nuisance parameters $\nu$, and the property we require is not invariance but a controlled, linear covariance of the latent density with $\nu$. Rather than requiring invariance under these distortions, we require the latent density to vary with $\nu$ in a controlled, linear manner (cf. Eq. 8). Enforcing this equivariance-like structure is what renders the downstream profile-likelihood test tractable, as detailed in Section III.

The statistical framework in which we ultimately deploy the embedding is the “New Physics Learning Machine” (NPLM) [10, 11], a statistical test for signal-agnostic detection based on the likelihood-ratio, which includes a treatment of systematic uncertainties using nuisance parameters. Since our work is directly built on this framework, we review it below.

Supervised contrastive learning offers a scalable route to anomaly detection by performing dimensionality reduction through neural embeddings: it compresses physics observables into a low-dimensional latent space while preserving sensitivity to statistical anomalies. Refs. [6, 7] showed that contrastive losses defined with physics-process labels yield latent spaces well suited to signal-agnostic anomaly detection at the LHC, with domain-informed label encoding being the key ingredient for statistical discovery performance.

We train a transformer-based encoder $f_{\theta}:\mathbb{R}^{d}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{k}$ ($k\ll d$) with the supervised contrastive loss [22],

where $\mathbf{z}_{i}=f_{\theta}(\mathbf{x}_{i})/\|f_{\theta}(\mathbf{x}_{i})\|$ is the $\ell_{2}$-normalized embedding, $P(i)$ indexes the events in the batch produced by the same background physics process as event $i$, and $\tau$ is a hyperparameter denoted temperature. With labels taken from simulation, this organizes the latent space by background physics process, clustering SM events of the same type. This loss does not account for systematic uncertainties. To include systematic uncertainties, we add an additional term to the loss that controls systematic variations on the latent space.

A continuous systematic uncertainty is described by a nuisance parameter $\nu$ that induces a deterministic distortion of the observables, $\mathbf{x}(\nu_{0})\mapsto\mathbf{x}(\nu)$. After encoding, this becomes a transformation of the latent distribution, $\mathbf{z}(\nu_{0})\mapsto\mathbf{z}(\nu)$. Without any constraint on $f_{\theta}$, this transformation can be arbitrarily nonlinear in $\nu$, making the latent log-density-ratio

difficult to model. As discussed in Section II.3, the NPLM strategy requires uncertainties to be well approximated by a polynomial model, so recovering a well behaved transformation in the embedded space is essential.

To this end, we impose a linear covariance condition on the latent space. Under this penalty loss the encoder is induced to organize the embedding so that the log-density-ratio is linear in $\nu$,

where $g_{\phi}(\mathbf{z})$ depends on the embedding alone. Under this condition $\nu$ is directly estimable by maximum likelihood in the latent space, and the nuisance profiling required by the statistical test becomes tractable.

We enforce condition (11) by training the encoder jointly with a model $g_{\phi}$ of the log-density-ratio. This mirrors equivariant self-supervised learning [17], where an auxiliary head that predicts the applied transformation improves representation quality; here we replace the geometric transformations with systematic effects parameterized by $\nu$. Concretely, we generate labeled pairs $(\mathbf{x}(\nu_{0}),\,\mathbf{x}(\nu))$ on a discrete grid of $\nu$ spanning the expected range $[-\sigma,+\sigma]$, and train $g_{\phi}$ as a parameterized classifier between the nominal and shifted distributions following [12], minimizing the quadratic loss

where $\sigma$ denotes the sigmoid function and the sum runs over the grid of nuisance values. By the likelihood-ratio argument of [12], the minimizer satisfies $g_{\phi}(\mathbf{z})\cdot\nu\to\log r(\mathbf{z}|\nu)$, so training $g_{\phi}$ enforces the linear model in (11).

The encoder and the ratio model are therefore optimized together, from the beginning of training, with the combined objective

where $\alpha>0$ balances the two terms. Backpropagating through $g_{\phi}$ into $f_{\theta}$ encourages the encoder to learn a representation in which the nuisance dependence of the density ratio is well described by the linear nuisance model.

Once this joint optimization has converged, we freeze the embedding and validate the linear nuisance model within the NPLM framework, following the strategy outlined in [12]. The procedure, summarized in Fig. 3, consists of four steps: we fine-tune the linear model, use it to build the profiled test statistic, tune the weight clipping of test network $h_{\zeta}$ for $\chi^{2}$ compatibility, and finally validate the modeling via closure checks.

With the encoder frozen, we first fine-tune $g_{\phi}$ further to reach the accuracy needed for the statistical test. The frozen encoder $f_{\theta}$ and the fine-tuned linear model $g_{\phi}$ then integrate directly into the profile-likelihood NPLM framework described in Section II.3. The test statistic is the profile-likelihood ratio defined in Eq. (3), evaluated in the latent space $\mathbf{z}$, with $g_{\phi}$ modeling the density ratio $r(\mathbf{z}|\nu)$ given in Eq. 10.

To calibrate the test, we identify an architecture and regularization for the test network $h_{\zeta}$ that render the test statistic approximately $\chi^{2}$-distributed under the null in the absence of uncertainties. We then incorporate the systematic via the linear model of Eq. (11) and validate the modeling via closure checks. We describe the regularization and closure checks below.

After the test has passed the robustness checks it is ready to be deployed for anomaly detection. When applied to real data $\cal D$, a single value of the test statistic $t_{\rm obs}$ is observed and thus a single global p-value $p({\cal D})$ is reported:

To assess the expected sensitivity to a simulated signal, we apply the test to many pseudo-experiments containing both background and signal. This gives the distribution of the test statistic under the alternative hypothesis. We then estimate the power at a given false-positive rate as the fraction of these pseudo-experiments in which the null hypothesis is rejected. We also report the p-value corresponding to the median test statistic, calculated using Eq. (15), as a measure of typical sensitivity. For probabilities estimated from finite samples of pseudo-experiments, we report Clopper–Pearson confidence intervals. Throughout this article we will often refer to p-values by their significance expressed as $Z=\Phi^{-1}(1-p)$, with $\Phi$ the standard-normal cumulative distribution function.

We evaluate this against three choices of null: (a) the empirical distribution $P(t\,|\,R_{\nu_{0}})$ from central-value toys; (b) the empirical distributions $P(t\,|\,R_{\nu})$ of the nuisance-shifted references at $+1\sigma$ and $-1\sigma$; and (c) the analytic $\chi^{2}$ survival function of the asymptotic distribution discussed above. In all three cases, we used the median of the signal distribution, exactly as the significance would be quoted for a single observed dataset. To assess how residual nuisance dependence affects the expected significance, we compare the nominal null distribution with those obtained for nuisance shifts of $\pm 1\sigma$. Although the test statistic is designed to be approximately independent of the nuisance parameter, small differences may remain, particularly in the tails of these distributions. At the same median test statistic, a heavier tail gives a larger $p$-value and lower significance. Comparing the nominal and shifted null distributions allows us to check whether using only the nominal reference would overstate the expected sensitivity. Close agreement among (a), (b), and (c) then doubles as a check that $P(t\,|\,R_{\nu})$ is effectively $\nu$-independent, so that the single calibration on $R_{\nu_{0}}$ remains valid across the allowed range of the nuisance. In Section IV we use the KS construction as a closure test on nuisance-shifted backgrounds and the median-$Z$ construction as our sensitivity measure for injected signals.

We apply the method to simulated CMS Level-1 trigger data [23] available on Zenodo [24, 25, 26, 27, 28]. Each event is represented by up to 19 reconstructed objects: 4 electrons/photons, 4 muons, 10 jets, and one missing transverse energy (MET) slot. Each object is described by $(p_{T},\eta,\phi)$, yielding 57 input features per event, with zero padding applied when fewer objects are present. The background sample consists of $W$ ($59.2\%$), QCD multijet ($33.8\%$), $Z$ ($6.7\%$), and $t\bar{t}$ ($0.3\%$) events, while the signal benchmarks are $\mathrm{LQ}\to b\tau$, $A\to 4\ell$, $h^{0}\to\tau\tau$, and $h^{\pm}\to\tau^{\pm}\nu$.

To model a realistic systematic effect, we introduce a nuisance parameter $\nu$ that rescales the jet transverse momentum as $p_{T}(\nu)=e^{\nu}p_{T}(0)$, with nominal value $\nu_{0}=0$. We set the standard uncertainty to $\sigma=2.5\%$, a typical percent-level size of jet energy scale uncertainties in LHC analyses [29].

After rescaling, we apply the same jet-level cut of $p_{T}\geq 23\,\mathrm{GeV}$ to the nominal and nuisance-shifted samples, giving them a common selection threshold. This ordering reflects an experimental selection, where trigger or analysis cuts act on the measured jet momenta, which already include any underlying systematic shift. Jets can therefore move across the selection threshold as $\nu$ varies.

Following Ref. [6], we use a Transformer-based encoder $f_{\theta}$ to map the 57-dimensional input to a 4-dimensional embedding, which gave the strongest AD performance among the dimensions tested. We leave the systematic study of nuisance uncertainty in higher-dimensional embeddings to future work. Nominal SM background events are used for the supervised contrastive task with physics labels. The initial contrastive embedding is shown in Figure 5. Before co-training with the linear nuisance model, the empirical log-ratios $\log(N_{\nu}/N_{0})$ are not always smoothly ordered or approximately linear across values of $\nu$, making their nuisance dependence difficult to model with the linear log-density-ratio parametrization of Eq. (11).

To impose a more controlled nuisance dependence, we performed the regularized training described in Section III.1. The encoder is trained in a 5-fold co-training setup with the linear model $g_{\phi}$, using $2.1\times 10^{6}$ events per fold per $\nu$ dataset, 60 epochs, a batch size of 1024, and a learning rate of $2\times 10^{-6}$.The resulting embedding is shown in Figure 5. After co-training with the covariance loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{cov}}$, the nuisance-shifted marginal distributions vary more smoothly and coherently with $\nu$, making the latent deformation easier to describe with the linear log-density-ratio model $g_{\phi}(\mathbf{z})\cdot\nu$. Although co-training takes longer than standard contrastive training, the encoder is trained only once and then frozen for the statistical tests. The covariance loss $\mathcal{L}_{\mathrm{cov}}$ plateaus during training, while the nuisance model $g_{\phi}$ benefits from longer fine-tuning.

Figure 6 directly compares the nuisance dependence of $\log(N_{\nu}/N_{0})$ before and after co-training. Each panel shows a selected bin in the first embedding dimension, with the bin center indicated above the panel. These bins are chosen only to illustrate the effect of linearization and are not representative of every bin in the embedding space. Here, $N_{\nu}$ is the number of events in that bin for a nuisance-shifted sample, while $N_{0}$ is the corresponding nominal count. The solid lines with error bars show the empirical values at $\nu=-1\sigma$, $0$, and $+1\sigma$, while the dashed lines show the fits from the linear nuisance model. Results for the original embedding are shown in blue, while those for the linearized embedding are shown in red.

Before co-training, the empirical blue lines can deviate substantially from the corresponding predictions of the linear model, indicating that the nuisance dependence encoded in the original embedding is not sufficiently linear to be accurately described by the linear parameterization of $\log(N_{\nu}/N_{0})$. After co-training, the empirical red lines follow the dashed predictions much more closely across the selected bins, demonstrating a clear improvement in the quality of the linear fit. These results show that jointly training the contrastive embedding and linear nuisance models reshapes the embedding such that its nuisance dependence is more accurately described by $g_{\phi}(\mathbf{z})\cdot\nu$. In this sense, co-training effectively linearizes the nuisance response of the embedding, making the chosen linear parameterization a substantially better approximation of the observed variations.

We co-train the linear nuisance model $g_{\phi}$ of Eq. (11) on the learned embeddings. It is linear in the nuisance parameter $\nu$ and, as a function of the embedding $\mathbf{z}$, is implemented as a fully connected network with architecture $(4,512,256,128,64,32,1)$, ReLU activations in the hidden layers, and a linear output. It is trained jointly with the contrastive encoder (Eq. (13)) using a learning rate of $2\times 10^{-6}$, $L_{2}$ regularization of $10^{-6}$, and co-training weight $\alpha=0.1$, then further fine-tuned on $1.6\times 10^{6}$ events per nuisance parameter. Both nominal and nuisance-shifted samples at $\pm 1\sigma$ and $\pm 2\sigma$ are used for this task. Figure 7 compares the nuisance-shifted test samples with the predictions of the fitted linear model across the four latent dimensions. The top row shows the nominal distribution at $\nu=0$ in gray, together with the test distributions at $\nu=\pm 1\sigma$ (solid lines) and their corresponding model predictions (dash-dotted lines). The middle row shows the same comparison in terms of $\log(N_{\nu}/N_{0})$. In both rows, the test and model samples are visually in close agreement across all four latent dimensions, indicating that the model accurately captures how the latent distributions change with $\nu$. This agreement is further confirmed by the bottom-row ratios of the model prediction to the test distribution, $N_{\nu}^{\mathrm{fit}}/N_{\nu}^{\mathrm{test}}$, which remain close to one throughout most regions in the latent space. Overall, the close visual agreement demonstrates that the linear nuisance model accurately captures the nuisance dependence of the embedding, suggesting that co-training has successfully linearized the nuisance dependence of the embedding.

The alternative-hypothesis network $h_{\zeta}$ in Eq. (3)is implemented as a fully connected neural network with architecture $(4,4,4,1)$, corresponding to 45 trainable parameters, with sigmoid activations in the hidden layers and a linear output. Following the calibration procedure of Section III, a weight-clipping regularizer is tuned with 400 pseudo-experiments drawn from the nominal reference sample $R_{\nu_{0}}$ so that the empirical null distribution matches the asymptotic $\chi^{2}_{45}$ (45 degrees of freedom, one per trainable parameter) [11]. Weight clipping bounds the absolute value of the network’s trainable parameters during training, which constrains the smoothness of the learned density ratio and prevents the model from overfitting statistical fluctuations in $D$; tuning the clipping value is what brings the empirical null into fair agreement with the asymptotic $\chi^{2}_{45}$. We train using $52{,}000$ reference events and $10{,}000$ background events $D$ per replica. We tune the weight clipping for two different implementations: (1) NPLM implemented in the original embedding from [6] as it is before co-training with the linear nuisance model, and (2) NPLM implemented in the embedding co-trained with the linear nuisance model as explained in Section IV.3. The optimal weight-clipping is 2.12 in the first case and 1.94 in the second case. Table 1 reports the results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov, Anderson–Darling, Cramér–von Mises, and Pearson $\chi^{2}$ compatibility tests between the analytical $\chi^{2}_{45}$ distribution and the empirical $R_{0}$ test-statistic distributions obtained with the original and linearized embeddings. Pearson $\chi^{2}$ tests are performed using binnings corresponding to 10 and 25 degrees of freedom, and each embedding is evaluated at its selected weight-clipping value. All of the resulting $p$-values are greater than $0.5$, indicating good agreement with the analytical distribution and supporting the chosen weight-clipping values.

We perform the closure test described in Section III.2 to verify that nuisance-induced background variations are not misidentified as signal-like excesses. Specifically, we apply the NPLM test to nuisance-shifted SM samples $D\sim R_{\nu}$, using the same luminosity as in the nominal calibration. Since these samples do not contain injected signal, their test-statistic distributions should remain consistent with the central-value null distribution $P(t\mid R_{0})$ once nuisance effects are properly modeled.

Figure 8 compares the background-only test-statistic distributions for $R_{0}$ and $R_{\nu=\pm 1\sigma}$ under three configurations. In all three panels, the filled red histogram represents the empirical distribution under the central-value reference hypothesis, while the orange and brown step histograms represent the distributions under $R_{\nu=+1\sigma}$ and $R_{\nu=-1\sigma}$, respectively. Panel 8(a) shows the NPLM test without treatment of uncertainties. In this case, the test has no way to account for the expected nuisance-induced variations, so the shifted background distributions move away from $R_{0}$ and can appear signal-like. In panel 8(b), nuisance parameters are included in the NPLM test, but the original unlinearized embedding from Ref. [6] is used. The shifted distributions still do not reach closure because the nuisance dependence is encoded nonlinearly in the learned representation and cannot be fully absorbed by adding only a downstream linear nuisance model. This motivates linearizing the embedding itself rather than relying on the NPLM nuisance fit alone. Finally, panel 8(c) shows the result of our method, co-training the embedding with the linear nuisance model. The nominal and nuisance-shifted distributions are now in good agreement, demonstrating that the linearized embedding, together with the nuisance-aware NPLM test, successfully prevents the systematic variations from causing false positives.

We quantify the agreement in the final linearized configuration shown in panel 8(c) using 400 background-only replicas for each nuisance value. Table 2 presents two complementary checks. First, we assess closure by comparing the nuisance-shifted test-statistic distributions, $R_{\nu=\pm 1\sigma}$, with the nominal reference $R_{0}$ using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS), Anderson-Darling (AD), and Cramer-von-Mises (CvM) tests, and binned Pearson $\chi^{2}$ compatibility tests with 10 and 25 degrees of freedom. All closure-test $p$-values exceed 0.5, indicating that the shifted distributions are consistent with the nominal reference. Second, we compare the same nuisance-shifted distributions with the analytical $\chi^{2}_{45}$ distribution using the KS, Anderson–Darling (AD), Cramér–von Mises (CvM), and Pearson $\chi^{2}$ tests. These $p$-values range from 0.24 to 0.86 and show no significant departure from the analytical reference. Together, these results support the interpretation that the linear model $g_{\phi}$, combined with the co-trained embedding, describes the nuisance-induced deformation sufficiently well to preserve the background-only test-statistic distribution. This closure is essential for latent-space anomaly detection, where an unmodeled systematic shift could otherwise produce an artificially significant excess.

To assess the role of co-training in achieving this closure, Table 3 reports the same tests for the unlinearized embedding with nuisance parameters included in the NPLM test, corresponding to panel 8(b). Although the nominal distribution agrees with the analytical $\chi^{2}_{45}$ reference, both nuisance-shifted distributions are inconsistent with $R_{0}$ and with the analytical reference, with small $p$-values across all tests. Agreement at the nominal nuisance value therefore does not ensure closure under nuisance shifts. Together with the linearized results, this comparison shows that the downstream linear nuisance model alone is insufficient to describe the shifts in the original embedding, while co-training enables the same model to achieve closure.

We then assess signal sensitivity by injecting a small signal component into the SM background sample. We consider 0.5% and 1% signal injections, corresponding in our luminosity settings to 50 and 100 injected signal events, respectively. For each injected sample, we compute the NPLM test statistic and convert it into an empirical $z$-score relative to the chosen background-only calibration distribution, estimated from 400 replicas. Figure 9 compares the test-statistic distributions obtained for a $1\%$ $H^{\pm}\to\tau^{\pm}\nu$ injection under the three nuisance-treatment configurations considered in this work. The first configuration, Figure 9(a), omits nuisance parameters from the NPLM test and shows how the test responds when systematic variations are not explicitly accounted for. In the second configuration, shown in Figure 9(b), the nuisance parameters are included in the test using the original, unlinearized embedding. Figure 9(c) combines the nuisance-aware NPLM test with the co-trained, linearized embedding and therefore corresponds to the full procedure proposed in this work.

The distributions in Figure 9 show that, when nuisance parameters are omitted from the NPLM test, the test statistic distribution under nuisance-shifted background-only (orange and brown) and under signal-injection (shades of blue) both shift toward larger values and cannot be reliably distinguished. Including the nuisance parameters with the original, unlinearized embedding also does not fully resolve this problem, as shown in Figure 9(b), where the shifted background distributions remain separated from $R_{0}$ and alter the calculation of p-values. On the other hand, after co-training, the background-only distributions achieve closure, while the signal-injected distributions remain right-shifted toward larger $t$ for all tested nuisance values. The linearized embedding therefore allows nuisance-induced variations to be calibrated retaining sensitivity to the signal injection across the tested values of $\nu$.

The detection results of our method on experiments with signal-injection across the four signal benchmarks are summarized in Table 4. The table reports the median observed $z$-scores obtained by calibrating each test sample against the empirical background-only distribution $R_{\nu=+1\sigma}$. We use the same reference for the unlinearized results in Table 5 to allow a direct comparison. These results show that the NPLM test retains sensitivity to small injected signals across the tested nuisance values. To further show the stability of our results, we report in Appendix A the same study using the nominal reference $R_{0}$, the nuisance-shifted reference $R_{\nu=-1\sigma}$, and the asymptotic $\chi^{2}_{45}$ distribution for calibration.

Table 5 instead evaluates the original embedding after nuisance parameters are incorporated into the NPLM test. Because the unlinearized embedding does not achieve closure between $R_{0}$ and $R_{\nu}$, the nominal distribution $R_{0}$ cannot be treated as a nuisance-independent null reference. Among the tested reference distributions, $R_{\nu=+1\sigma}$ has the longest high-$t$ tail and yields slightly more conservative significances. We therefore calibrate these results against $R_{\nu=+1\sigma}$ as the conservative reference where closure is not achieved. Even under this conservative calibration, the significance of the same signal injection remains strongly dependent on the nuisance value of the test sample. Although some variation is expected from finite-sample fluctuations and further reduced sensitivity can be caused by nuisance coupling with the injected signal, the variations observed across nuisance values within the same signal-injection column in Table 5 indicate that the reported sensitivity is strongly driven by the lack of background closure. In particular, the sensitivity is systematically larger when the nuisance is not in the central value, suggesting that the observed z-score is inflated by the residual mismodeling of the uncertainties. The instability is further reflected in the negative $z$-scores, which occur when the median test statistic of a signal-injected distribution lies below the median of the conservative $R_{\nu=+1\sigma}$ reference distribution, corresponding to a one-sided empirical $p$-value greater than $0.5$. In these cases, the nuisance-induced displacement of the unlinearized background distribution is larger than the displacement produced by the injected signal. The negative values therefore do not indicate a “negative signal,” but instead demonstrate that a post-hoc correction for the absence of closure causes a systematic shift that can obscure or overwhelm the signal response. Overall, this nuisance dependence makes the resulting significances unreliable. The same underlying signal can appear more significant, less significant, or even shifted below the reference median, causing loss in sensitivity and even chances of false claims.

Figure 10 illustrates this effect for a $0.5\%$ injection of the $LQ\to bt$ signal. The background-only distribution at $\nu=+1\sigma$ has a larger median test statistic than the signal-injected distribution at $\nu=0$. Calibrating the latter against $R_{\nu=+1\sigma}$ therefore gives a median $p$-value above $0.5$ and a negative $Z$-score, despite the presence of signal. This example shows how, without co-training, residual nuisance effects can exceed the response to an injected signal,limiting the test’s ability to distinguish new physics from nuisance-induced shifts.

Conversely, the detection performed in the linearized embedding (Table ) yields $z$-scores that are substantially more stable across the tested nuisance values: within each benchmark and injection fraction, the spread across $\nu$ is at most $0.16$, compared with up to $0.95$ for the unlinearized embedding. At the nominal value $\nu=0$, the linearized embedding also yields equal or higher significance for every benchmark. At $\nu=\pm 1\sigma$ the unlinearized embedding can return larger $z$-scores, but, as discussed above, these are inflated by residual nuisance mismodeling rather than reflecting genuine sensitivity. The closure between $R_{0}$ and $R_{\nu}$ provides a consistent background-only calibration, ensuring that the inferred significances primarily reflect the injected signals rather than unknown nuisance variations. The linearized embedding therefore provides both improved sensitivity and reliably calibrated significances, making it the more robust and practically usable representation for an uncertainty-aware anomaly search.

The power curves in Figures 11 and 12 provide a richer view of the discovery sensitivity, inspecting all discovery thresholds simultaneously for $0.5\%$ and $1\%$ signal injections, respectively. Each figure compares the unlinearized embedding in the top row with the linearized embedding in the bottom row, both calibrated against $R_{\nu=+1\sigma}$. Each curve gives the probability that the observed significance exceeds a threshold $Z_{\alpha}$; better performance is indicated by signal-injected curves that lie well above the gray calibration curve and retain high power as $Z_{\alpha}$ increases. For the linearized embedding, the power curves corresponding to different nuisance values overlap closely in most cases, indicating that the discovery power is both strong and mostly independent of $\nu$. In contrast, the unlinearized embedding shows much larger shifts and fluctuations across nuisance values. Overall, the linearized embedding yields power curves that are nearly independent of $\nu$ and, at the nominal value $\nu=0$, lie at or above those of the unlinearized embedding. The higher power of the unlinearized embedding at $\nu=\pm 1\sigma$ in some panels reflects the lack of background closure rather than genuine discovery sensitivity. These trends are consistent with the test-statistic distributions in Fig.  and the median $z$-scores reported in Tables  and : the linearized embedding gives stable sensitivity across nuisance values, whereas the unlinearized embedding produces a less reliable and strongly nuisance-dependent response.

Encoder ($f_{\theta}$) training was performed on a 48 GB GPU, with a typical training time of 4 hours and 45 minutes. Linear model ($g_{\phi}$) fine-tuning was performed on a 48 GB GPU, with a typical training time of 3 hours. The test network $h_{\zeta}$ was trained on CPUs, with a typical training time of 50 minutes.

The code and detailed documentation to reproduce the experiments can be found at https://github.com/tshelley200/cl4ad_uncertainty.