\section{Introduction}

Many extensions of the Standard Model (SM) predict the existence of light pseudo-scalars, the so-called axion-like particles (ALPs). In general, they are predicted in any models with spontaneous breaking of a global $U(1)$ symmetry~\cite{Peccei:1977hh,Weinberg:1977ma,Wilczek:1977pj,Kim:1979if} and also appear in supersymmetry (SUSY) with dynamical SUSY breaking~\cite{Bagger:1994hh} or spontaneously  R-symmetry breaking~\cite{Bellazzini:2017neg} as well as in compactifications of string theory~\cite{Svrcek:2006yi,Arvanitaki:2009fg,Cicoli:2012sz}. Besides, they may play a crucial role in solving the hierarchy problem~\cite{Graham:2015cka} and be related to the electroweak phase transition~\cite{Ballesteros:2016euj}. So far such ALP particles have been being searched at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and their phenomenological studies are being extensively studied nowadays.

Of course, for the phenomenological studies,  the ALP masses and couplings to SM particles are the most important parameters. A considerable region of these parameters has already been probed by the cosmological observations, the low-energy experiments and the high energy colliders~\cite{Dobrescu:2000jt,Chang:2006bw,Toro:2012sv,Draper:2012xt,Ellis:2012zp,Mimasu:2014nea,Knapen:2016moh,Barrie:2016ntq,Bauer:2017ris,Brivio:2017ije,Bauer:2018uxu,Ebadi:2019gij,Takahashi:2020bpq,Han:2020dwo,Gu:2021lni,Athron:2020maw}:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
For an ALP wih mass $m_a\gtrsim 5$ GeV, the LEP and current LHC experiments have good sensitivities and a considerable region of parameter space has been probed. For instance, the $e^+e^- \to \gamma a~(a\to \gamma\gamma)$ and $Z \to a\gamma$ processes at LEP~\cite{Jaeckel:2015jla} have been exploited to search for ALPs. The $\gamma\gamma \to a \to \gamma\gamma$
searches have been utilized in electromagnetic PbPb collisions at the LHC by CMS and ATLAS~\cite{denterria2021collider}. The rare decay channels of Higgs boson $h \to Za ~(a\to \gamma\gamma)$ and $h \to a(\to \gamma\gamma)a(\to \gamma\gamma)$ at the LHC~\cite{Bauer:2017nlg} have also been utilized to probe the ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ versus the ALP mass $m_{a}$.
\item[(ii)]
For an ALP with mass below the MeV scale, the cosmological and astrophysical observations~\cite{Raffelt:1990yz,Marsh:2015xka}, such as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and the Supernova 1987A, have already produced many constraints on ALP couplings.
In addition, such light ALPs can become cold dark matter (DM)~\cite{Preskill:1982cy,Abbott:1982af,Dine:1982ah} and be detected by various astrophysical and terrestrial anomalies~\cite{Arias:2012az}, including the unexpected $X$-ray emission line around 3.5~keV~\cite{Jaeckel:2014qea} and the excess of electronic recoil events in XENON1T~\cite{Gao:2020wer}.
\item[(iii)]
For an ALP in the mass range of MeV to GeV, it may make sizable contributions to low energy observables in particle physics and many searches in intensity frontiers~\cite{Izaguirre:2016dfi,Dolan:2017osp,Bauer:2019gfk,Banerjee:2020fue} which have been performed recently, such as the lepton flavor violating decays~\cite{Calibbi:2020jvd}, the rare meson decays~\cite{Izaguirre:2016dfi,Dolan:2017osp,Bjorkeroth:2018dzu,chakraborty2021heavy} and the ALP production in beam dumps experiments~\cite{Dobrich:2015jyk}. Besides, such an ALP has been proposed to explain the muon anomalous magnetic moment~\cite{Marciano:2016yhf,Bauer:2019gfk} and may also offer a plausible explanation for the Koto anomaly~\cite{Gori:2020xvq}.
\item[(iv)]
For the ALP mass in between 0.1 GeV and 10 GeV, recently, the Belle II~\cite{Abudin_n_2020} search for the process $e^{+}e^{-}\to\gamma a, a \to \gamma\gamma$ in the mass range 0.2 GeV $<m_a<$ 9.7 GeV using data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of (445$\pm$3)pb$^{-1}$.
\end{itemize}
Note that, a rather light ALP can be highly boosted, and thus the two photons from the ALP decay can be highly collimated and lead to an interesting ``diphoton-jet'' signature at the LHC. Distinguishing such diphoton-jets from the overwhelming QCD-jets and single photons is crucial for the ALP search at the LHC. In the literature there are some studies on these diphoton-jets by exploiting the jet substructure ~\cite{Ellis:2012zp,Allanach:2017qbs,Chakraborty:2017mbz,Sheff:2020jyw,Wang:2021uyb}. We will concentrate on the ALP that only couples to the electroweak gauge bosons with a mass range from a few hundred MeV to 10~GeV. Such a light ALP with couplings to gauge bosons has attracted much attention recently. Different from the existing studies~\cite{Gavela:2019cmq, Bauer:2017nlg}, we will  neglect the ALP-gluon coupling so that its dominant production channel at the LHC is the ALP-strahlung processes $pp \to Va$ ($V = W, Z$), as shown in Fig.~\ref{Feynman_diagrams}.

Besides the conventional analysis methods, the machine learning techniques have been used to search for new physics~\cite{Larkoski:2017jix,Ren:2017ymm,Abdughani:2018wrw,Ren:2019xhp,Collins:2019jip,Day:2019ucy,Abdughani:2019wuv,Abdughani:2020xfo,Feickert:2021ajf}.
In our work we will exploit low-level jet information directly by utilizing machine learning (ML) and computer vision (CV) techniques, rather than using physics-inspired features, in order to not only improve the discrimination power, but also gain new insight into the underlying physical processes.
A convolutional neural network (CNN) will be designed to analyze these ``diphoton-jet'' events from the decay of ALPs based on the notion of jet-image which was first introduced in Ref.~\cite{Cogan:2014oua} and then studied in Refs.~\cite{Almeida:2015jua,de_Oliveira_2016,ATL-PHYS-PUB-2017-017,Lin:2018cin,Komiske_2018,Barnard_2017,Komiske_2017,Kasieczka_2017,Macaluso_2018,Li_2021,li2020attention,Lee_2019,collado2021learning,Du_2021}. In this way, the calorimeter is regarded as a camera and the jets are represented as images in which the pixel intensities are the energy depositions of the particles within the jet.
It was found in the literature that the CNN can provide the ability to learn rich high-level abstract features of jet images and greatly enhance the discrimination power. Based on the diphoton-jet tagging, we will further use another simple neural network (NN) to obtain optimal detection significance for the two ALP-strahlung processes in our study.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm]{FD2.pdf}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\caption{Feynman diagrams of ALP-strahlung production processes $pp \to W^\pm a$ and $pp \to Za$ with $(a\to \gamma\gamma)$ at the LHC}.
\label{Feynman_diagrams}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we describe the effective Lagrangian of ALP interactions and the simulation details. In Section III, we first introduce the jet-image pre-processing techniques, and then design a CNN architecture to identify the diphoton-jet events, and also build an NN to optimize the detection significance. In Section IV, we present and discuss the numerical results. Finally, we draw our conclusions in Section V.

\section{Model and simulation details}

\subsection{Model}
We consider an effective Lagrangian which consists of ALP interactions with electroweak gauge bosons up to dimension-5, given by~\cite{Brivio:2017ije}
\begin{eqnarray}
	\mathcal{L}_{\text{eff}}
	&\supseteq &
 \frac{1}{2} (\partial^\mu a)(\partial_\mu a) - \frac{1}{2} m_a^2 a^2-  C_{BB} \frac{a}{f_a} B_{\mu\nu} \tilde{B}^{\mu\nu}
	-  C_{WW} \frac{a}{f_a} W^{i}_{\mu\nu} \tilde{W}^{\mu\nu,i},
\label{general-NLOLag-lin}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ represents the ALP field, $f_{a}$ is the ALP decay constant which is set to 1 TeV$^{-1}$ in this paper, and $V_{\mu\nu}$ and $\tilde{V}_{\mu\nu}$ represent the field strength for a SM gauge boson defined as $V_{\mu\nu} \equiv \partial_\mu V_\nu - \partial_\nu V_\mu$ and $\tilde{V}_{\mu\nu} \equiv \epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}V^{\rho\sigma}$, with $W_{\mu\nu}$ and $B_{\mu\nu}$ being for $SU(2)_L$ and $U(1)_Y$, respectively.

The third and fourth terms in Eq.~\ref{general-NLOLag-lin} induce the following dimensional couplings: $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$,  $g_{aWW}$, $g_{aZZ}$, $g_{a\gamma Z}$, which control the strength of the ALP's interaction with gauge bosons
\begin{eqnarray}
	g_{a\gamma\gamma} &=& \frac{4}{f_a} (C_{BB} \cos\theta_W^2 + C_{WW} \sin\theta_W^2),\\
	g_{aWW} &=& \frac{4}{f_a} C_{WW},\\
	g_{aZZ} &=& \frac{4}{f_a} (C_{BB} \sin\theta_W^2 + C_{WW} \cos\theta_W^2),\\
	g_{a\gamma Z} &=& \frac{8}{f_a}\sin\theta_W\cos\theta_W (C_{WW} - C_{BB}),
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta_W$ is the Weinberg angle. For simplicity, we set $C_{WW} = C_{BB}$ in our study. In this work, we consider two ALP-strahlung production processes $p p \to W^\pm(\to \ell^\pm \nu)a(\to \gamma\gamma)$ and $p p \to Z(\to \ell^+\ell^-)a(\to \gamma\gamma)$ as our signals, in which $\ell^\pm$ denotes $e^\pm$ or $\mu^\pm$. The SM backgrounds of $Za$ signal are the $Z \gamma$ and $Z j$ processes, while the SM backgrounds of $W^\pm a$ signal are mainly the $W^\pm \gamma$ and $W j$ processes ($j$ stands for a light jet). Besides, the QCD di-jet events could also be an important SM background whenever one jet fragments into electromagnetic energy mostly and the other jet fragments into a ﬁnal state with an energetic isolated lepton. Although fake rate of jets is quite small, the large cross section of QCD di-jets makes its contribution non-negligible. In the LHC experiment, when $m_a \gtrsim 10$ GeV, ALP will decay into two well separated photons that are identified as $2\gamma$ events by the detector. On the other hand, if the ALP mass is lighter than a few hundred MeV, it will decay into highly collimated photon pairs that deposit energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter as a single photon. Between these two mass bounds, the two photons will be seen like a ``diphoton-jet''. In this case, we can use calorimeter towers as the pixels of the image and measure a jet as an image. Then we use machine learning techniques based on convolutional neural networks to discriminate diphoton-jets from single photons and QCD-jets.

\subsection{Simulation details}
For Monte Carlo signal simulations, we implement the effective Lagrangian of Eq.~\eqref{general-NLOLag-lin} in \textsf{FeynRules}~\cite{Alloul:2013bka} to generate the corresponding UFO model file. The parton level signal and background events are generated with \textsf{MadGraph5 aMC@NLO}~\cite{Alwall:2014hca} at the leading order. The following cuts for parton level event generation are employed: $p_{Tj}$ > 20 GeV, $|\eta_{j}|$ < 5.
We perform parton shower and fast detector simulations with
\textsf{Pythia8243}~\cite{Sjostrand:2014zea} and \textsf{Delphes 3.4.3}~\cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}. \textsf{FastJet 3.3.2}~\cite{Cacciari:2011ma} is used for jet clustering.
The NNPDF2.3QED parton distribution function (PDF) set~\cite{Ball:2013hta} is chosen in our calculations. Scale uncertainty is determined through independent restricted variation of the factorization scale $\mu_F$ and the normalization scale $\mu_R$. We use the built-in systematics tool in \textsf{MadGraph5 aMC@NLO} to evaluate the PDF and scale uncertainties. The cross sections of backgrounds are given in Table~\ref{uncertainty}. In $\textsf{Delphes}$, the stable hadrons such as neutrons and charged pions are assumed to deposit all their energy in the hadron calorimeter HCAL. For short-lived particles such as neutral pions decaying into a pair of photons are assumed to deposit all their energy in the electromagnetic calorimeter ECAL. For long-lived particles, such as Kaons and $\Lambda$ with $c\tau$ smaller than 10 mm, they are assumed to share their energy deposit between ECAL and HCAL with default fractions $f_\mathrm{ECAL}$=0.3 and $f_\mathrm{HCAL}$=0.7 according to the dominant decay products of those particles. The electron and muon are identified according to the default $\textsf{Delphes}$ CMS card, which are included in event selection. Only the photons and hadrons (including the hadronic decay products of tau) are used for jet reconstruction.

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline  ~~Backgrounds~~ & \tabincell{c}~~$\sigma_{tot}$[pb]~~ &  \tabincell{c}{scales[pb]} & \tabincell{c}{pdf[pb]}  \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{$t\bar{t}$} & 5.98$\times$10$^{2}$ & $ ^{+1.77\times10^{2} (29.6\%)}_{-1.28\times10^{2} (21.4\%)} $ & $ ^{+2.45\times10^{1} (4.1\%)}_{-2.45\times10^{1} (4.1\%)} $ \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{$tj$} & 2.04$\times$10$^{2}$ & $ ^{+1.87\times10^{1} (9.15\%)}_{-2.33\times10^{1} (11.4\%)} $ & $ ^{+2.82\times10^{0} (1.38\%)}_{-2.82\times10^{0} (1.38\%)} $ \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{$W^\pm\gamma$} & 9.91$\times$10$^{1}$ & $ ^{+1.04\times10^{1} (10.5\%)}_{-1.14\times10^{1} (11.5\%)} $ & $ ^{+3.09\times10^{0} (3.12\%)}_{-3.09\times10^{0} (3.12\%)} $ \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{$W^\pm j$} & 4.07$\times$10$^{4}$ & $ ^{+7.82\times10^{3} (19.2\%)}_{-6.80\times10^{3} (16.7\%)} $ & $ ^{+9.16\times10^{2} (2.25\%)}_{-9.16\times10^{2} (2.25\%)} $ \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{$jj$} & 2.49$\times$10$^{7}$ & $ ^{+7.94\times10^{6} (31.9\%)}_{-5.85\times10^{6} (23.5\%)} $ & $ ^{+4.10\times10^{5} (1.65\%)}_{-4.10\times10^{5} (1.65\%)} $\\
\hline \tabincell{c}{$Z\gamma$} & 7.55$\times$10$^{1}$ & $ ^{+7.85\times10^{0} (10.4\%)}_{-8.53\times10^{0} (11.3\%)} $ & $ ^{+2.31\times10^{0} (3.06\%)}_{-2.31\times10^{0} (3.06\%)} $\\
\hline \tabincell{c}{$Zj$} & 1.30$\times$10$^{4}$ & $ ^{+2.38\times10^{3} (18.3\%)}_{-2.07\times10^{3} (15.9\%)} $ & $ ^{+2.87\times10^{2} (2.2\%)}_{-2.87\times10^{2} (2.2\%)} $\\
\hline \end{tabular} \caption{The fiducial cross sections of the SM backgrounds with the theoretical uncertainties at 14 TeV LHC.}
\label{uncertainty}
\end{center}
\end{table}

 Based on the energy-flow algorithm~\cite{CMS-PAS-PFT-09-001}, the EflowPhotons, EflowNeutralHadrons and ChargedHadrons, which are composed of deposits in ECAL and HCAL, are clustered into jets using the anti-$k_t$ algorithm~\cite{Cacciari:2008gp} with $R_j = 0.4$. Only the leading jet in each event is retained for further analysis and it is required with $p_{T}$ > 50 GeV and $|\eta| < 2.5$. Besides, we also include the pile-up events to perform a pile-up robust analysis. The numerous soft QCD pile-up events are generated with \textsf{Pythia8} and then simulated by \textsf{Delphes}. In the CMS card we consider the average amount of pile-up events per bunch-crossing as 40. We take the default parametrization implemented in the CMS card to distribute the hard scattering events and pile-up events in time and $z$ positions randomly. The ground truth labels of the leading jets in signal events are ``diphoton-jet''. The leading jets in the $W^\pm a$ and $Za$ background events are labelled as ``single photon''. While the leading jets in other background events are labelled as ``QCD-jet''.

In terms of the effective ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$, the decay width of the ALP is given by
\begin{equation}
    \Gamma = \frac{g^{2}_{a\gamma\gamma}m^{3}_{a}}{64\pi}
\end{equation}
Then the decay length in the limit of $E_{a}\gg m_{a}$ is approximated by~\cite{Dobrich:2015jyk}
\begin{equation}
   l_{a}=\beta\gamma\tau \approx \frac{64\pi E_{a}}{g^{2}_{a\gamma\gamma}m^{4}_{a}}\approx 40 \text{m} \times \frac{E_{a}}{\text{10 GeV}}(\frac{g_{a\gamma\gamma}}{10^{-5}\text{GeV}^{-1}})^{-2}(\frac{m_a}{100\text{MeV}})^{-4}
\end{equation}
Since the typical value of the transverse momentum of our ALP is in the range of 50 GeV to 1 TeV, we can have the decay length 0.1 mm $<l_a<$ 4.9 mm for $m_a=0.3$ GeV and $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=1$ TeV$^{-1}$. On the other hand, if the ALP is very light, the produced ALP at the LHC can be long-lived and may either be undetected (missing energy) or decay away from the primary vertex, other methods have to be utilized to observe such light ALP signature~\cite{Alimena_2020}.

In order to discriminate a diphoton-jet from a single photon and QCD-jet, we reorganize the information of jet constituents provided by the ECAL and HCAL as digital images which are the so-called jet images. In this work, the jet images are of $40\times40$ pixels resolution. They cover the area of [-0.4,0.4]$\times$[-0.4,0.4] in the $\eta\times\phi$ plane centering around the reconstructed jet axes. Thus, each pixel corresponds to $\Delta\eta \times \Delta\phi = 0.02 \times 0.02$, which matches the simulated CMS electromagnetic calorimeter granularity. As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{jet-image}, for each pixel, we sum up the transverse momentum separately for all the particles, for the charged hadrons, for the photons and for the neutral hadrons falling into the pixel as the pixel intensity in the four separate image channels. Therefore, each image channel is one jet observable.

\section{Jet tagging method}

\subsection{Jet image pre-processing}

To make the CNN learn highly discriminative features between signal and background events, we pre-process all the jet images by translation, rotation and normalization. Note that since the transverse momentum $p_{T}$ is invariant under longitudinal boosts, the pixel intensities in the four channels, which are given by the sum of the transverse momentum of all the particles, the charged hadrons, the photons and the neutral hadrons respectively inside the jet, are invariant under translation and rotation in $\eta$ and $\phi$.

\begin{itemize}

\item \textbf{Translation:} First of all, we define a new coordinate system in the $\eta-\phi$ plane centered at the jet. In this way, the coordinates of each particle $k$ inside the jet in the new coordinate system are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\eta_k^\prime = \eta_{k} - \eta_0,~~\phi_k^\prime = \phi_k - \phi_0.
\end{eqnarray}
where $(\eta_0,\phi_0)$ is the jet coordinates in the frame with the interaction point of p-p collision as the origin.

\item \textbf{Rotation:} The second step of pre-processing is rotating the jet image around the image center. We define the ``barycenter'' of a jet image as
\begin{eqnarray}
    \eta_C = \frac{1}{p_{T}}\sum_k \eta'_k p_{T_k},
    \quad
    \phi_C = \frac{1}{p_{T}}\sum_k \phi'_k p_{T_k},
\end{eqnarray}
which is the weighted sum of the transverse momenta of all the constituents inside the jet, where $p_{T} = \sum_k p_{T_k}$ is the total transverse momentum of the jet and $p_{T_k}$ is the transverse momentum of the $k$-th particle inside the jet. Then, we rotate the whole jet image such that the ``barycenter'' of the jet is in the 12 o'clock position:
\begin{eqnarray}
    \tan\theta = \phi_C/\eta_C
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
    \eta_k^{\prime\prime} = \eta_k^\prime\cos\theta-\phi_k^\prime\sin\theta,
    \phi_k^{\prime\prime} = \eta_k^\prime\sin\theta+\phi_k^\prime\cos\theta.
\end{eqnarray}

\item \textbf{Normalization:} The last step is normalization.
In order to make the neural network learn more efficiently, we scale the pixel intensity of each channel to [0,1] via dividing by a constant. In this way, the absolute energy scale dependence of jet images can be removed. It allows for comparisons of jet images with different energies. We take different normalization constants for different channels. Most of the pixel intensities of diphoton-jet images and single photon images are carried by the the pair of collimated photons and the single photon with transverse momentum of tens of GeV. Therefore for the channel given by the sum of the transverse momentum of all the particles and the channel given by the sum of the transverse momentum of all the photons, the normalization constant is set to 100. The charged hadrons and neutrons distributions in all the jet images samples are diffuse and the transverse momentum of most of them are less than 10 GeV. Therefore for the channel given by the sum of the transverse momentum of all the charged hadrons or all the neutral hadrons, the normalization constant is set to 10.

\end{itemize}

\subsection{Jet-tagging neural network}

An illustration of the architecture of the jet-tagging CNN is shown in Fig.~\ref{cnn1}. The input is a jet-image of $40\times40$ pixels with four channels. Followed by the input layer, a normal convolutional layer and a depthwise convolutional layer are designed to extract pixel-level feature map of the jet-image. The kernel size of the normal convolutional layer is $5\times 5$ and the number of kernels is 32.
The inner structure of the depthwise convolutional layer~\cite{chollet2017xception} is given in Fig~\ref{depthwise}, where a depthwise convolution of $5 \times 5$ kernel is first applied on each channel of the input feature map, and then a $1 \times 1$ pointwise convolution is applied to aggregate the features along channel direction. Besides, the leaky ReLU~\cite{maas2013rectifier} is adopted as the activation after both the normal convolutional layer and the depthwise convolutional layer.

\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=16cm,height=10cm]{cnn1.pdf}
    \caption{Illustration of the jet-tagging CNN}
    \label{cnn1}
\end{figure}

Then, we add an attention block to weight the feature map, as shown in Fig.~\ref{attention-overall}, so as to make the CNN concentrate on the significant features distinguishing signals from backgrounds. The resulting feature map obtained from the previous layer is taken as the input of an efficient channel attention (ECA) module \cite{wang2020ecanet}. As shown in Fig.~\ref{attention-eca}, by independently averaging all the pixels values of each feature map with each average value representing the corresponding feature channel, the global average pooling results in a feature vector whose dimension equals to the number of input channels which is 32 in our designed model. Then, a one-dimension convolution of kernel size 5 is adopted to aggregate the local information in the feature vector and the result is activated by a sigmoid function to generate the weights on each feature channel. Finally, the input feature map is weighted by multiplying each feature channel by its corresponding weight. As a result, the ECA module suppresses less important feature channels. In short, ECA attention is computed as
\begin{align}\label{fun_eca1}
\omega_{m} = \sigma\bigg(\sum_{n=1}^{k}w_{mn}y_{mn}\bigg),\,\,y_{mn} \in \Omega_{mk},
\end{align}
where $\Omega_{mk}$ indicates the set of $k$ adjacent channels of $y_{m}$ and $\sigma$ denotes the sigmoid function. The weight of $m$-th channel is calculated by considering the local cross-channel interaction between $y_m$ and its $k$ neighbors. In this way, the ECA module first captures the local information which is exchanged quickly across channels through each channel and its $k$ neighbors. Then the global cross-channel interactive information is captured by fast one-dimensional convolution of size $k$. This size $k$ represents the coverage of the local cross-channel interaction, i.e., how many neighbors participate in attention prediction of one channel. In order to avoid manual tuning of $k$ via cross-validation, $k$ is determined adaptively.

Secondly, the weighted feature map obtained from the ECA module is further fed into a spatial attention module \cite{woo2018cbam}. As shown in Fig.~\ref{attention-spatial}, both a global max pooling and a global average pooling are applied on the input feature map along the channel direction to generate two aggregated feature channels. Then, the spatial weights are generated by applying a convolution of kernel size $3 \times 3$ and a sigmoid activation. Finally, the input feature map is multiplied by the spatial weights pixel-wisely. In short, the spatial attention is computed as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:forth}
\begin{split}
    \mathbf{M_s}(\mathbf{F})&=\sigma(f^{3\times 3}([AvgPool(\mathbf{F}); MaxPool(\mathbf{F})]))\\
    &=\sigma(f^{3\times 3}([\mathbf{F^{s}_{avg}}; \mathbf{F^{s}_{max}}])),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where \(\sigma\) denotes the sigmoid function and \(f^{3\times 3}\) represents a convolution operation with the filter size of $3\times 3$. \(\mathbf{F^{s}_{avg}}\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times 40\times 40}\) and \(\mathbf{F^{s}_{max}}\in \mathbb{R}^{1\times 40\times 40}\) represent the two 2D maps generated by the two pooling operations.

\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \subfigure[The overall structure of the attention block]{
        \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=6cm]{attention1.pdf}
        \label{attention-overall}
    }
    \subfigure[The efficient channel attention (ECA) module]{
        \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=6cm]{attention3.pdf}
        \label{attention-eca}
    }
    \subfigure[The spatial attention module]{
        \includegraphics[width=15cm,height=6cm]{attention2.pdf}
        \label{attention-spatial}
    }
    \caption{The attention block designed in our model.}
    \label{attention}
\end{figure}

Next, we apply a stack of $2\times2$ maxpooling layers and $5\times5$ depthwise convolutional layers. All the feature maps have 32 channels and are activated by a leaky ReLU.

Afterwards, we flatten the final feature map into a single vector and feed it into a fully connected network with two hidden layers. The hidden layers have 128 and 32 neurons, respectively, with a leaky ReLU activations. In the output layer, we apply the SoftMax activation to generate three class probabilities for the diphoton-jet, the single photon and the QCD-jet, respectively. The sum of the three probabilities is one.

To optimize the model parameters in the jet-tagging CNN, we choose the cross-entropy as the loss function. The CNN is trained using the Adam \cite{Kingma:2014vow} optimizer with a constant learning rate of 0.001 based on the gradients calculated on a mini-batch of 64 training examples. The network is trained up to 100 epochs, and we adopt the early-stopping technique to prevent over-fitting.

\subsection{Jet selection neural network}

Detection significance depends on the event selection efficiency. In order to obtain an optimal detection significance, another simple neural network is built to learn an optimal selection cut on jet tagging probabilities. As shown in Fig.~\ref{cnn2}, it takes the three jet-tagging probabilities obtained from the jet-tagging neural network as input. A hidden layer with 10 neurons and a leaky ReLU activation is used to enhance the non-linearity of the optimized cut. The output layer is activated by a sigmoid function. This network predicts the probability of the jet selected as a signal.

\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=6cm,height=6cm]{cnn2.pdf}
    \caption{Architecture of the selection neural network.}
    \label{cnn2}
\end{figure}

Because the detection significance is calculated by counting the signal and background events, it cannot be used directly to build the loss function of the optimization. Since the loss function should be mathematically differentiable, we first approximate the signal and background event count using the jet selection probabilities obtained from the neural network for all events. Denoting the jet selection probability for event $i$ as $p_i$, the jet selection efficiency can be estimated by
\begin{equation}
    \varepsilon_\mathrm{pj} = \frac{\sum_\mathrm{pj} p_\mathrm{pj}}{\sum_\mathrm{pj} 1},
    \varepsilon_\mathrm{p} = \frac{\sum_\mathrm{p} p_\mathrm{p}}{\sum_\mathrm{p} 1},
    \varepsilon_\mathrm{j} = \frac{\sum_\mathrm{j} p_\mathrm{j}}{\sum_\mathrm{j} 1} ,
\end{equation}
where "$pj$", "$p$" and "$j$" represent the diphoton-jet signal, the single photon background and the QCD-jet background events, respectively. The sum runs over all the corresponding events. Then the signal and background event count $\mathcal{S}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ can be approximated by
\begin{align}
    \mathcal{S} &\approx \sigma_S \varepsilon_{pj} \mathcal{L} , \\
    \mathcal{B} &\approx (\sigma_p \varepsilon_p + \sigma_j \varepsilon_j) \mathcal{L},
\end{align}
where $\sigma_S, \sigma_p$ and $\sigma_j$ represent the cross sections of the diphoton-jet signal, the single photon background and the QCD-jet background after the basic selection which will be described in the next section. Then, the simple detection significance formula can be expressed as
\begin{equation}
    Z = \frac{\mathcal{S}}{\sqrt{\mathcal{B}}} = \frac{\sigma_S \varepsilon_{pj} \mathcal{L}}{\sqrt{(\sigma_p \varepsilon_p + \sigma_j \varepsilon_j) \mathcal{L}}}
\end{equation}
We take $-Z$ as the loss function to optimize the NN model weights. Then, after optimization, we take 0.5 as the selection threshold to count the number of diphoton-jets, single photons and QCD-jets (whose selection probabilities are greater than 0.5) and use the Poisson formula
\begin{equation}
    Z = \sqrt{2\left[(\mathcal{S}+\mathcal{B}){\rm ln}(1+\mathcal{S}/\mathcal{B})-\mathcal{S}\right]}
\end{equation}
to accurately evaluate the detection significance.
In our analysis, we use the Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.02 to optimize the model weights based on the gradients calculated over 5000 epoch.

Both the CNN and the simple NN were implemented in the deep learning framework of PyTorch~\cite{NIPS2019_9015} with GPU acceleration. Xavier-uniform initialization~\cite{glorot11a} is used to initialize the model weights and the model biases are initialized to zero.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=15cm,height=8cm]{depthwise.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the depthwise convolution layer and the pointwise convolution layer.}
\label{depthwise}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{Analysis and results}

For the ALP-strahlung production process $p p \to W^\pm a$, the final states are identified as one lepton and one diphoton-jet. The main SM backgrounds are from the QCD di-jet, $W^\pm j$, $W^\pm \gamma$, $t\bar{t}$ and $tj$ productions. According to the above analysis, we adopt a basic selection criteria to select signal events in our analysis: (i) There is exactly one lepton (electron or muon) with $p_\text{T} > 20$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.5$;
(ii) The hardest jet is required to have $p_\text{T} > 50$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.5$ (since our signal contains a hard diphoton-jet).

For the ALP-strahlung process $p p \to Z a$, the final states are marked by an opposite-sign and
same-flavor charged lepton pair and a diphoton-jet.
The main SM backgrounds are dominated by the productions of $Z\gamma$ and $Zj$. We distinguish the signal and the background by imposing a basic selection criteria:
(i) There are exactly two oppositely charged leptons with $p_\text{T} > 20$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.5$;
(ii) The invariant mass of the oppositely charged lepton pair with same flavor is required to be in the range of 70 GeV < $m_{ll}$ < 110 GeV;
(iii) The hardest jet is required to have $p_\text{T} > 50$ GeV and $|\eta| < 2.5$ (for the reason stated in the above).

According to the L1 trigger menu of the CMS with tracking information~\cite{CMSrates}, the current offline threshold of the single electron (muon) $+$ jet are 23 GeV (16 GeV) and 66 GeV, respectively. The offline threshold of the single electron $+$ photon are 22 GeV and 16 GeV, respectively. These will be able to collect all events of interest for our study. The higher event rates and event sizes at the HL-LHC will be a challenge for the trigger and data acquisition systems. With a complex series of upgrades including the installation of new detectors and the replacement of ageing electronics, we expect the future trigger menu could be comparable with that of Run-2.

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\resizebox{\textwidth}{25mm}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline  basic selection & \tabincell{c}{signal} &  \tabincell{c}{$jj$} & \tabincell{c}{$W^\pm\gamma$} & \tabincell{c}{ $W^\pm j$}  &\tabincell{c}{ $t\bar{t}$} & \tabincell{c}{$tj$}   \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{No Cut} & $4.6\times10^{-1}$ & $2.5\times10^7$ & $9.9\times10^1$ & $4.1\times10^4$ & $6.0\times10^2$ & $2.0\times10^2$ \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{1 lepton with \\$p_\text{T} > 20$ GeV \\and $|\eta| < 2.5$} & $6.0\times10^{-2}$ & $1.9\times10^5$ & $1.2\times10^1$ & $4.4\times10^3$ & $1.5\times10^2$ & $2.9\times10^1$ \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{The hardest \\jet with \\$p_\text{T} > 50$ GeV \\and $|\eta| < 2.5$} & $4.0\times10^{-2}$ & $1.3\times10^5$ & $2.5\times10^0$ & $1.6\times10^3$ & $1.4\times10^2$ & $1.9\times10^1$ \\
\hline \end{tabular}}
\caption{The basic selection cut-flow of the cross sections (in units of pb) for the ALP-strahlung production process $pp \to W^\pm a$ with $m_{a}$=3 GeV at the 14 TeV LHC where $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ are set to 0.64 TeV$^{-1}$. As a comparison, the corresponding results of the backgrounds are also listed. }
\label{Cutflow1}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline  ~~basic selection~~ & \tabincell{c}~~signal~~ &  \tabincell{c}{$Z\gamma$} & \tabincell{c}{$Zj$}  \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{No Cut} & $1.7\times10^{-1}$ & $7.6\times10^1$ & $1.3\times10^4$ \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{2 leptons with \\$p_\text{T} > 20$ GeV \\and $|\eta| < 2.5$} & $4.2\times10^{-3}$ & $1.9\times10^0$ & $2.8\times10^2$ \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{oppositely charged lepton\\ pair with same flavor and\\ 70 GeV < $m_{ll}$ < 110 GeV} & $4.1\times10^{-3}$ & $1.9\times10^0$ & $2.8\times10^2$ \\
\hline \tabincell{c}{The hardest jet \\with $p_\text{T} > 50$ GeV \\and $|\eta| < 2.5$} & $2.9\times10^{-3}$ & $4.4\times10^{-1}$ &~~ $1.0\times10^2$ ~~\\
\hline \end{tabular} \caption{Same as Table 1, but for the ALP-strahlung production process $pp \to Za$ and the corresponding backgrounds.}
\label{Cutflow2}
\end{center}
\end{table}

As an example, we consider a benchmark signal point with $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$ and $m_{a} = 3$~GeV. The cut-flow of our basic selection for the ALP-strahlung production processes $pp \to W^\pm a$ and $pp \to Z a$ and the main backgrounds are given in Tables~\ref{Cutflow1} and \ref{Cutflow2}. Next, we use the signal and background events after basic selection to train the CNN.
During the 100 training epochs, the model with the minimal validation loss is chosen as the best model.
The size of the training set and validation sets are both 150k.

After applying the above translation and rotation in the preprocess, in Fig.~6, we present the jet images of the diphoton-jet from the ALP, the single photon and the QCD-jet. The benchmark signal events are generated for the ALP with $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$ and $m_{a} = 3$~GeV. The single photon and QCD-jet are taken from $W^\pm+\gamma$ and $W^\pm+j$ background events, respectively. The pixel intensities $\bar{p}_{T}(a)$, $\bar{p}_{T}(b)$, $\bar{p}_{T}(c)$ and $\bar{p}_{T}(d)$ (namely four image channels) correspond to the averages of the transverse momentum of all the particles, the photons, the charged hadrons, and the neutral hadrons falling in each pixel over the total number of events, respectively. As shown in Fig.~6, the diphoton-jet and the single photon events have much higher $p_{Ta}$ and $p_{Tb}$ than the QCD-jet events. Meanwhile, the QCD-jet background has much higher $p_{Tc}$ and $p_{Td}$ than the diphoton-jet and the single photon events. In the four image channels, the spread of the pixel intensity of the QCD-jet events around each image center is wider than that of the diphoton-jet and the single photon events.

\begin{figure}[!h]
    \centering
    \subfigure[diphoton-jet]{
        \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=4.2cm]{pj1-2.pdf}
    }
    \subfigure[single photon]{
        \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=4.2cm]{p1-2.pdf}
    }
    \subfigure[QCD-jet]{
        \includegraphics[height=10cm,width=4.2cm]{qcd1-2.pdf}
    }
    \caption{The jet images for three kinds of jets after applying the translation and rotation steps of the pre-processing. The three kinds of jets are the leading jets of the benchmark signal events with $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$ and $m_{a} = 3$~GeV, the leading jets of the W$^\pm \gamma$ background events and the leading jets of the W$^\pm j$ background events after basic selection.} The pixel intensities of the four channels, defined by the sum of the transverse momentum of all the particles, the photons, the charged hadrons and the neutral hadrons, are labeled as $p_{Ta}$, $p_{Tb}$, $p_{Tc}$ and $p_{Td}$, respectively.
    \label{jet-image}
\end{figure}

Fig.~\ref{attention_images} shows the attention images for a QCD-jet, a single photon and a diphoton-jet samples, respectively, when $m_{a} = 3$~GeV. It shows that the network can learn to automatically extract the most distinguishable image regions and pay more attention to them. For a diphoton-jet sample, the network focuses on two image regions that contain a pair of collimated photons, and the leading subjet gets relatively stronger attention. For a single photon sample, the network pays strong attention to the pixel where the leading subjet is located. And the attention is weak and more diffuse for a QCD-jet sample.

\begin{figure*}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=4.9cm]{photon_jet2.pdf}
    \includegraphics[width=4.9cm]{single_photon2.pdf}
    \includegraphics[width=4.9cm]{QCD_jet2.pdf}
    \caption{Attention obtained by the training samples for the QCD-jets, single photons and diphoton-jets when $m_{a}=3$ GeV.}
    \label{attention_images}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{photonjet.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{singlephoton.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{qcdjet.pdf}
\caption{A ternary plot for the diphoton-jet events, the single photon events and the QCD-jet events. The red, green and blue points represent the diphoton-jet events, the single photon events and the QCD-jet events, respectively.}
\label{ternary1}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{photonjetx.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=4.7cm]{singlephotonx.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{qcdjetx.pdf}
\caption{The optimal cut for the ALP-strahlung production process $pp \to W^\pm a$ based on the selection NN with $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$ and $m_{a}=3$ GeV. The red, green and blue points represent the diphoton-jet events, the single photon events and the QCD-jet events while the black line is the optimal cut.}
\label{ternary2}
\end{center}
\end{figure*}

After training, we ﬁnd the optimal model parameters and the jet-tagging CNN is tested on the jets in the remaining signal and background events based on the best model. The resulting jet tagging probabilities are fed into the jet selection NN to optimize the jet selection efficiency for the diphoton-jet, the single photon and the QCD-jet, respectively. We adopt the widely used ternary plot to present the jet tagging probabilities for each jet in the validation set. As shown in Fig.~\ref{ternary1}, the red, green and blue points denote the diphoton-jet, the single photon and the QCD-jet, respectively. Same as before, the benchmark point is chosen as $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$ and $m_{a}=3$ GeV. It is clear that the size of the validation data set for the CNN is same as the size of the training data set for the jet selection NN.

In the following, we will employ a simple NN to obtain the optimal cut to maximize the statistic significance for $pp \to W^\pm a$ and $pp \to Za$ processes. The integrated luminosity is set to 3000 fb$^{-1}$ at the 14 TeV LHC. In Fig.~\ref{ternary2}, we present the optimal cut for the ALP-strahlung production process $pp \to W^\pm a$ based on the selection NN with $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$ and $m_{a}=3$ GeV.

In order to estimate the statistical error, we train seven selection neural networks to obtain the mean detection significance and its standard deviation. For the diphoton-jet signal events and the single photon background events, we use seven different data sets, with each of them containing 300k events. The size of single photon background events which contains $W^\pm \gamma$ and $Z\gamma$ processes in the training data set are also 300k. The number of events from different processes are determined by the cross section. Note that, after jet selection cut, there are limited number of QCD-jets. However, generating QCD-jet events is computationally expensive. To ensure a stable statistics, we adopt the bootstrap sampling method for the QCD-jet background events which contains $jj$, $W^\pm j$, $t\bar{t}$, $tj$ and $Zj$ processes. At each time, 3M QCD-jets are randomly sampled from all the QCD-jet samples. The number of events from different processes are also determined by the cross sections. The event number in the training data set can ensure that there are at least 10 events left after any cut imposed by the neural network regardless of signal or backgrounds.
The optimal detection significance for the ALP-strahlung production processes $pp \to W^\pm a$ and $pp \to Za$ obtained from seven simple NNs are shown in Tables~\ref{table1} and \ref{table3}.

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline  & \tabincell{c}{1} &  \tabincell{c}{2} & \tabincell{c}{3} & \tabincell{c}{4}  &\tabincell{c}{5} & \tabincell{c}{6} & \tabincell{c}{7}   \\
\hline ALP Mass/GeV &\multicolumn{7}{c|}{Significance} \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{0.3} & 0.12 & 0.16 & 0.21 & 0.15 & 0.13 & 0.22 & 0.18 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{0.5} & 0.31 & 0.39 & 0.41 & 0.33 & 0.26 & 0.29 & 0.32 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{1} & 0.54 & 0.51 & 0.45 & 0.49 & 0.44 & 0.50 & 0.44 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{2} & 0.73 & 0.86 & 0.81 & 0.69 & 0.66 & 0.61 & 0.69 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{3} & 1.49 & 1.52 & 1.47 & 1.36 & 1.41 & 1.39 & 1.44 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{4} & 1.99 & 2.05 & 2.11 & 2.07 & 2.14 & 1.95 & 1.98 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{5} & 2.86 & 2.65 & 2.65 & 2.74 & 2.88 & 2.71 & 2.63 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{6} & 2.86 & 2.25 & 2.35 & 2.54 & 2.48 & 2.51 & 2.43 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{7} & 2.71 & 2.52 & 2.42 & 3.08 & 2.63 & 2.99 & 2.80\\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{8} & 2.02 & 1.99 & 2.05 & 2.20 & 2.17 & 2.06 & 2.21 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{9} & 2.07 & 2.01 & 2.17 & 2.10 & 2.16 & 2.04 & 2.07 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{10} & 1.44 & 1.32 & 1.28 & 1.36 & 1.49 & 1.39 & 1.46 \\
\hline \end{tabular} \caption{The optimal significance for the ALP-strahlung production process $pp \to W^\pm a$ obtained from the trainings of seven significance neural networks. The benchmark point is chosen as $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$. }
\label{table1}
\end{center}
\end{table}

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline   & \tabincell{c}{1} &  \tabincell{c}{2} & \tabincell{c}{3} & \tabincell{c}{4}  &\tabincell{c}{5} & \tabincell{c}{6} & \tabincell{c}{7}  \\
\hline ALP Mass/GeV &\multicolumn{7}{c|}{Significance} \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{0.3} & 0.29 & 0.21 & 0.18 & 0.24 & 0.27 & 0.22 & 0.32\\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{0.5} & 0.77 & 0.72 & 0.83 & 0.69 & 0.71 & 0.66 & 0.64 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{1} & 0.98 & 0.91 & 0.87 & 0.85 & 0.93 & 0.88 & 0.95 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{2} & 1.89 & 1.91 & 1.85 & 1.93 & 1.90 & 1.82 & 1.88 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{3} & 2.08 & 2.15 & 2.11 & 2.17 & 2.04 & 2.12 & 2.06 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{4} & 2.49 & 2.32 & 2.38 & 2.63 & 2.31 & 2.30 & 2.33 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{5} & 2.06 & 1.98 & 1.93 & 2.15 & 1.99 & 2.14 & 2.02 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{6} & 1.75 & 1.70 & 1.68 & 1.72 & 1.76 & 1.69 & 1.73 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{7} & 1.66 & 1.45 & 1.47 & 1.70 & 1.50 & 1.55 & 1.44 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{8} & 1.61 & 1.51 & 1.49 & 1.53 & 1.49 & 1.68 & 1.66 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{9} & 1.44 & 1.64 & 1.52 & 1.49 & 1.55 & 1.59 & 1.65 \\
\hline  \tabincell{c}{10} & 1.41 & 1.56 & 1.59 & 1.45 & 1.52 & 1.38 & 1.36 \\
\hline \end{tabular} \caption{The optimal significance for the ALP-strahlung production process $pp \to Za$ obtained from the trainings of seven significance neural networks. The benchmark point is chosen as $g_{a\gamma\gamma}=0.64$ TeV$^{-1}$. }
\label{table3}
\end{center}
\end{table}

In Fig.~\Ref{cm}, we present the $2\sigma$ bounds on the ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ versus  $m_{a}$ from the ALP-strahlung production processes $pp \to W^\pm/Z a$. Based on the results of the seven simple NNs, we calculate the mean significance and the corresponding standard deviation for all benchmark points and we draw two exclusion bands where each band has a width of 10 standard deviations. The red band indicates the $2\sigma$ bounds for $pp \to W^\pm a$ process while the blue band indicates the $2\sigma$ bounds for $pp \to Za$ process. As mentioned in Section II, the diphoton-jet we defined in this paper can only be applied to the ALP mass range from a few hundred MeV to 10 GeV. When the ALP mass is larger than 10 GeV, the ALP will decay to two separated photons and are detected as 2$\gamma$ events. When the ALP mass is less than a few hundred MeV, the ALP will be highly boosted and decay into a pair of highly collimated photons. The reconstruction of such a low mass resonance in our phenomenological study is very challenging so that we focus on the ALP mass range of 0.3 GeV to 10 GeV.

For comparison, we also present the previous constraints such as the beam dump searches for short-lived axions, the LEP searches for ALPs via $e^+ e^- \to 2\gamma/3\gamma$ processes, the di-photon resonance around the $B_{s}$ mass between 4.9 GeV and 6.3 GeV from the LHCb, the isolated and energetic photons produced by the hadronic decay of $Z$ boson at the L3. Since the resonant searches based on Upsilon meson decay process $\Upsilon \to a\gamma$ at Babar can only be used to scenarios with a non-zero ALP-gluon coupling while in our analysis we turn off the ALP-gluon coupling, we do not include the BaBar limits.
Note that the searches for $\gamma\gamma$ resonances in photon and weak boson fusion processes by ATLAS and CMS~\cite{Knapen:2016moh,Jaeckel:2015jla,ATLAS:2012fgo,Jaeckel:2012yz} are sensitive only when $m_{a}>$10 GeV. Recently, The $\gamma\gamma \to a \to \gamma\gamma$
searches have been utilized in electromagnetic PbPb collisions at the LHC by CMS and ATLAS~\cite{CMS:2018erd,ATLAS:2020hii}, which provide the current most competitive ALPs limits in the mass range of 5 GeV $<m_a<$ 100 GeV, as shown in Fig.~\Ref{cm}. Besides, $e^{+}e^{-}\to\gamma a, a \to \gamma\gamma$ processes have been searched in the mass range 0.2 GeV $<m_a<$ 9.7 GeV in the Belle II~\cite{Abudin_n_2020}, as shown in Fig.~\Ref{cm}.
Moreover, we also show the constraints from Ref.~\cite{Wang:2021uyb} , in which the electroweak ALP is probed via the ALP-strahlung production processes $pp \to W^{\pm}/Z a$ in the mass range of 0.3 GeV $<m_a<$ 10 GeV at the 14 TeV HL-LHC based on jet substructure variables and BDT method. The constraints are depicted as red dashed line and blue dashed line to present the $2\sigma$ bound for the $pp \to W^\pm a$ process and the $pp \to Za$ process, respectively. Since the results in Ref.~\cite{Wang:2021uyb} is based on conventional jet substructure variables and BDT, we tagged these two dashed lines with ``pp$\rightarrow{W^\pm a}$ without CNN'' and ``pp$\rightarrow{Za}$ without CNN''. As shown in Fig.~\Ref{cm}, the shapes of the red and blue bands in this work based on CNN are similar to the shapes of the dashed red and blue lines in Ref.~\cite{Wang:2021uyb} based on jet substructure variables which could cover part of the triangle region between the Belle II bound and the ATLAS/CMS(PbPb) bound. The exclusion limits are weaker when $m_{a}$ is close to 0.3 GeV and 10 GeV since the diphoton-jet signal feature is not clear with either being detected as 2$\gamma$ events or being tagged as a single photon in our analysis. The best exclusion limits from the processes $pp \to W^\pm a$ and $pp \to Z a$ are obtained when $m_{a}$ are in the range of 5 to 7 GeV and 3 to 5 GeV, respectively. For the same ALP-strahlung process, diphoton-jet tagging based on CNN in this work is much better than that based on jet substructure variables analysis in Ref.~\cite{Wang:2021uyb}.

We find that our approach based on the jet-tagging CNN and the detection significance optimization NN can improve the current LHC sensitivities to the ALP mass from 5 GeV to 0.3 GeV in the case of vanishing ALP-gluon coupling. Moreover, it can greatly surpass the existing LEP bounds, Belle II constraints and the limits from Ref.~\cite{Wang:2021uyb}. For instance, $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ in our study can be excluded to 1.1 TeV$^{-1}$ at $m_a=0.3$ GeV and 0.5 TeV$^{-1}$ at $m_a=5$ GeV. It should be noted that our obtained limit from the HL-LHC is stronger than that from current Belle-II data. However, the future Belle II with full integrated luminosity of 50 ab$^{-1}$ may provide more stringent constraints than ours~\cite{Dolan:2017osp}.

In this work, we mainly investigate the potential of utilizing the CNN method to distinguish the ALP diphoton-jet events from the single photon and QCD jets events. But it is worth to note that additional standard kinematic cuts exploiting the full kinematical properties of the signal and background events could be used to further suppress the backgrounds and enhance the sensitivity. For example, we note that the resulting QCD-dijet events is the dominant background for the signal process $ pp \to W^\pm a$. Therefore, isolating photon and a cut on the missing transverse energy would be helpful to reduce the such a background in our analysis of the process $ pp \to W^\pm a$. Our results obtained in this paper should be considered as a lower limit on top of which further improvements can be implemented. Besides, we should mention that our sensitivity analysis would be affected by the systematic uncertainties, such as the calibration of the jet energy scale. However, this will need a full simulation of detector and real data. Since the realistic detector performances of the HL-LHC are not still available, we do not include the systematic uncertainties in the current calculation. An updated analysis will be done in our future work.

\begin{figure}[ht]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=12cm]{limits.pdf}
    \caption{The $2\sigma$ bounds on the ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ versus $m_{a}$ plane.
    Regions above the red and blue dashed lines are excluded by $pp \to W^\pm/Z a$ at the 14 TeV LHC with an integrated luminosity 3000 fb$^{-1}$, without using CNN~\cite{Wang:2021uyb}. Regions above red and blue bands are excluded by this work using CNN. Other bounds shown are from LEP~\cite{Mimasu:2014nea,Jaeckel:2015jla}, L3~\cite{Adriani:1992zm}, Belle II~\cite{Abudin_n_2020}, LHCb~\cite{CidVidal:2018blh}, ATLAS/CMS~\cite{Knapen:2016moh,Jaeckel:2015jla,ATLAS:2012fgo,Jaeckel:2012yz}, ATLAS/CMS(PbPb)~\cite{denterria2021collider} and Beam Dumps~\cite{Dobrich:2015jyk}.}
    \label{cm}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusions}

In this work we studied the ALP-strahlung production processes $pp \to W^\pm a, Z a$ in the mass range of 0.3 GeV $<m_a<$ 10 GeV at the 14 TeV HL-LHC. Since the two photons from the ALP decay are highly collimated for such a light ALP, we designed a jet-tagging CNN to discriminate our signal from the QCD-jets and the single photon backgrounds based on the jet-image notion and proposed a detection significance optimization NN to search for the optimal cut to maximize the statistic significance for the ALP-strahlung production processes $pp \to W^\pm a, Z a$. With the help of machine learning techniques, we obtained the $2\sigma$ bounds on the ALP-photon coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}$ versus the ALP mass $m_{a}$. The coupling $g_{a\gamma\gamma}>$ 1.1 TeV$^{-1}$ at $m_a=0.3$ GeV and $g_{a\gamma\gamma}>$ 0.5 TeV$^{-1}$ at $m_a=5$ GeV can be excluded at $2\sigma$ level at the 14 TeV LHC with an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$. This shows that our approach can extend the current LHC bounds on the ALP mass from 5 GeV to 0.3 GeV and the obtained bounds are stronger than the existing other limits.

\acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(NNSFC) under grant Nos. 11821505, 12075300, 11947118,
by Peng-Huan-Wu Theoretical Physics Innovation Center (12047503),
by the CAS Center for Excellence in Particle Physics (CCEPP),
by the CAS Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences,
by a Key R\&D Program of Ministry of Science and Technology of China
under number 2017YFA0402204,
and by the Key Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Grant NO. XDPB15.


\section{Introduction}

Acoustic source detection, classification and localization is a key task for a wide variety of applications, such as smart speakers/assistants, interactive robotics and scene visualization. Broadly, a microphone array (typically with four microphones) receives sound events from the environment, which are corrupted by background noise. The task is to firstly detect events, classify them, and finally estimate the physical location or direction-of-arrival angle (DoA).

Early work has demonstrated how deep learning techniques can be used to provide good performance for sound event detection and localization. However, the majority of these works treat event detection and localization as separate problems\cite{seld_dcase19}\cite{polyphonic_seld_icassp20}. For example, a framewise classifier and regressor are used separately \cite{doa_esti_multi_source}\cite{sound_loc_study} to obtain event class and spatial location. In addition, they also rely heavily on handcrafted pre-processing to convert the raw waveforms into time-frequency representations\,(\textit{e.g.} log-mel spectrograms, gcc-phat\cite{gcc_phat}) that are more amenable to process with mature 2-D CNN networks like ResNet\cite{resnet18} followed by LSTM\cite{LSTM} or GRU\cite{GRU} network for handling temporal dependencies. Lastly, sound event detection is typically achieved following a segment-based approach (\textit{e.g.} cut the waveform into second-long snippet) which inevitably leads to incomplete or partial detection that span segment boundaries.

The relatively unexplored area becomes more challenging when it considers polyphonic event detection where events with different DoAs overlap temporally. In addition, rather than necessarily being stationary, these events undergo a motion. This increased realism leads to poor performance or even incapability of existing methods\cite{joint-measure}\cite{seld_dcase19} that make a strong assumption that only a single and stationary event exists at a time slot.

In this paper, we rethink the polyphonic sound event detection and localization problem. We draw inspiration from the success of object detection in 2-D images and 3-D point clouds, and think of an event as being analogous to a ``sound-object" that has a specific location (spatial and temporal onset/offset), size (duration) and class (semantic category).

Unlike computer vision where the primary challenge is occlusion of overlapping objects leading to partial views, the physics of sound are such that sound-objects superimpose and additively mix with one another. Sound objects thus have to rely on frequency-selective and phase-sensitive approaches so as to be distinguished from background or ambient noise. Rather than detecting in several separate and independent steps, a more desirable event detector needs to be end-to-end that directly consumes raw waveform and outputs predictions, whilst generates minimal computation cost. To this end, we propose a unified and light weight polyphonic sound event detection and localization framework, dubbed SoundDet, that naturally meets these requirements.

To the best of our knowledge, SoundDet is the first approach to directly consume the raw waveform and not rely on any spectral transformation pre-processing. To achieve this, we propose to learn a set of channel correlation aware and frequency sensitive bank of filters, these parametric filters naturally captures the phase difference between channels and frequency bandpass for different sound events. Comparing with standard 1D/2D convolution, learning such filter bank requires minimal computation cost and parameters, making it ideal for processing the raw waveform with large sampling rates. SoundDet takes a novel view and adopts a dense event proposal strategy to directly estimate an event's location, size and category information, unlike current approaches that simply treat it as a segment-wise prediction problem. To better model a sound event's completeness and continuity, we introduce concept like motion smoothness, boundary sensitive temporal overlapness.

To comprehensively evaluate the performance, we further propose an event-based evaluation system. Unlike previous segment-based evaluation, event-based metric takes sound event's confidence score, length and motion consistency into account and accumulates performance under different score threshold. We embrace 2D image object detection metric\cite{coco_dataset} and propose to calculate average precision/recall, mean average precision (mAP), mean average recall (mAR) for each category. Experiment on 14 sound category DoA estimation DCASE dataset\cite{dcase2020} shows the advantage and efficacy of SoundDet.

In summary, our main contributions are three fold: \textbf{First}, We propose the first framework for polyphonic moving sound event detection and localization that directly consumes raw waveform and estimate sound event from ``event-object" perspective. \textbf{Second}, We propose a novel phase and frequency sensitive MaxCorr filter bank that is parameter and computation lightweight to process raw waveform. \textbf{Third}, An event-based evaluation system that avoids arbitrarily setting threshold is proposed to better evaluate the framework.

\section{Related Work}

Existing approaches\cite{seld_dcase19}\cite{eventness_detect}\cite{polyphonic_seld_icassp20} on sound event detection and localization heavily rely on 2D convolutional neural networks to process the large, multichannel waveforms. In order to use 2D CNN frameworks such as ResNet\cite{resnet18_seld}, the 1D waveforms are converted 2D time-frequency representations by using hard-coded methods. Typical method include short-time Fourier Transforms\,(FFT)\cite{kothinti2019joint,krause2019arborescent},  Generalized Cross-Correlation (GCC-PHAT)\cite{adavanne2016sound,gcc_phat},
Mel-Spectrograms\cite{MFCC,cakir2016filterbank,hayashi2017duration}, Log-Mel Spectrograms\cite{adavanne2016sound,xia2019multi} and pitch estimators\cite{adavanne2016sound}. Contrary to these methods, SoundDet is an end-to-end and unified framework, it directly consumes raw waveform and jointly predicts a potential event by fully considering it as a holistic ``sound-object", embedded in time and space. It does not require any hand-selection and tweaking of preprocessing algorithms. Moreover, existing approaches usually chain 2D CNNs and recurrent networks (\textit{i.e.} GRU\cite{GRU}, LSTM\cite{LSTM}) to incorporate temporal information. SoundDet consists of light-weight CNNs and hence has few parameters and is computationally efficient.

Fair and comprehensive evaluation of the sound event detection and localization is still an under-defined problem. Existing methods adopt segment-based evaluation, in which they segment a sound track into small chunks (\textit{i.e.} 1s) and compare the result just within a segment, ignoring a sound event's duration and continuity. In addition, the segment-based evaluation treats each detected sound event as either true positive or false positive by arbitrarily setting a threshold. It does not represent the performance under various thresholds. We draw inspiration from object detection in 2D images\cite{coco_dataset}\cite{faster_rcnn}\cite{SSD} and  propose a new event-based evaluation metric, which instead computes mean average precision\,(mAP) and mean average recall (mAR) for each category accumulatively.

\section{SoundDet}

\subsection{Problem Formulation}
We have a multi-channel sound recording\,(aka sound waveform) $W_c$ recorded by one microphone array station or multiple microphone array stations at a fixed sampling rate, $W_c$ contains a sound event set\,\footnote{In this paper, a sound event is restricted to be a temporally and spatially continuous and semantically meaningful. Two events with exactly the same temporal location belong to different class.} $E=\{e_i=(t_{s,i}, t_{e,i}, l_i, c_i)\}_{i=1}^{N}$, where $t_{s,i}$, $t_{e,i}$ are the $i$-th sound event's start time and end time, respectively, $c_i$ indicates the sound event's semantic information\,(\textit{i.e.} category, baby cry, phone ring). $l_i$ indicates the sound event's spatial location, it can either be a fixed location if the sound event is stationary or a spatial trajectory if it undergoes a motion. The task is to learn a model $\mathcal{F}$ to accurately recover these sound events directly from raw sound waveform,

\begin{equation}
    E = \mathcal{F}(W_c)
\end{equation}

These sound events are polyphonic, which means they may overlap in the time dimension.

\subsection{MaxCorr Band-Pass Filter Bank and Backbone}

\begin{figure*}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.97\textwidth]{sound_struct_pipeline.pdf}
    \caption{SoundDet pipeline: the input multi-channel waveform is fed to a backbone neural network to learn framewise representations. The backbone consists of MaxCorr filter bank and a encoder-decoder like network. A spatial location head and a dense event proposal generation head connect the backbone network in parallel. The spatial location head predicts per-class spatial location in a framewise manner. The dense proposal head gives all possible event proposals, each one associates with an event-wise feature, certain start/end time. The dense proposal head maintains two score maps, one map measures proposals' temporal overlap with group truth and the other represents proposals' motion smoothness, which directly comes from spatial location head. The two maps unifies spatial location head and temporal location head so that the whole framework can be jointly trained in a unified manner.}
    \label{fig:pipeline}
\end{figure*}

Sound waveform usually has high temporal resolution, a typical 1 minute recording of 30kHz has 1.8 million data points. This leads to unbearable computation burden\,(FLOPs) for standard 1D/2D convolution.
To counteract the large data point size issue and further to enforce the neural network to learn meaningful sound event spatio-temporal representation, we propose to learn a set of rectangular band-pass filters in frequency domain, each of which contains a lower learnable frequency cuttoff $f_1$ and a higher learnable frequency cutoff $f_2$. After converting the rectangular band-pass filter to time domain, we obtain $sinc$ convolution kernels $k$,

\begin{equation}
k[n, f_1, f_2] = 2f_2 sinc(2\pi f_2 n) - 2f_1 sinc(2\pi f_1 n)
\end{equation}

where $sinc(x) = sin(x)/x$. Note that the band-pass filter is a parametric filter that the learnable parameter number is independent of the kernel length. Moreover, the kernel length is usually much larger than standard 1D/2D convolution kernel length. A typical band-pass filter kernel length can be set as a large number\,(in our case 481), whereas the standard 1D/2D convolution kernel size is usually 3 or 5. These two properties guarantee these band-pass filters are highly efficient at both FLOPs computation and model parameter number. The SincNet filter has been successfully applied for speech recognition\cite{SincNet}.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{maxcorr_filter.pdf}
    \caption{Visual comparison of standard 1D/2D convolution with our proposed MaxCorr filter. While the learnable parameters of standard 1D/2D convolution equals to filter size\,(left side image), MaxCorr filter is parametric and introduces much fewer learnable parameters (right side image). For four channel waveform inputs, each MaxCorr filter merely has six learnable parameters (two frequencies and four time shifts).}
    \label{fig:max_corr}
\end{figure}

To further enforce the above designed filter banks to be able to dynamically decouple the sound event's temporal information and spatial information. We further expand the sinc filter to multiple channels to model the internal correlation between different channels. We draw inspiration from canonical time difference of arrival (TDoA) estimation to explicitly encode sound events' geometrical information recorded by microphone array. TDoA is a well-established technique for sound source geolocalization. It exploits the arrival time difference among microphones to recover the sound event spatial information\,(\textit{i.e.} DoA or physical location) by computing the maximum time delay in either frequency domain or time domain\cite{time_domain_gcc}. We involve TDoA estimation into our band-pass filter bank design and propose a new filter bank $g(\cdot)$ that is capable of learning the correlation between different channels. Learning such filter bank helps the neural network to dynamically learn how to integrate between-channel correlation and event frequency band pass to best recover sound events, we thus call it MaxCorr filter bank,

\begin{equation}
    g(n, f_1,f_2, t_1,\cdots, t_c) = [k[n+t_1], \cdots, k[n+t_c]]
    \label{maxcorr-filter}
\end{equation}

where $t_i$ is the $i$-th channel time shift parameter, $f_1$, $f_2$, $t_1, \cdots, t_c$ are learnable parameters and in our case $c=4$ as there are four channels. To make the time shift parameter to be differentiable, we adopt sigmoid like soft truncation to approximate the round operation, like \cite{look_closer} do. Please see Fig.\ref{fig:max_corr} for MaxCorr filter illustration and its comparison with standard convolution.

Following the MaxCorr filters, we add an encoder-decoder like 1D convolution network to learn framewise representations. In the encoder, we gradually reduce the temporal length but the increase the filter number, resulting in a compressed representation. In the decoder, it goes the opposite way and finally forms a ``bottleneck"-like backbone neural network. To mitigate the model training degradation dilemma, we add skip connection between the encoder and decoder. The MaxCorr filter bank and encoder-decoder like neural network together constitute the Backbone neural network, which learns a framewise representation $[f_1, f_2, \cdots, f_N]$, where each representation's temporal duration equals to ground truth labelling resolution, like 100ms.

\subsection{Dense Sound Event Proposal}

Given the representation learned by the backbone, the next step is to generate sound event proposal.
Potential sound events freely span in the temporal and spatial space, which means sound events are largely varying in their temporal length and spatial location. An efficient sound event proposal generation module thus should be: 1. able to handle sound events with large varying temporal length and spatial location. 2. computationally efficient enough\,(\textit{i.e.} generating potential event proposals at parallel). To this end, we propose a dense sound event proposal generation module, which organizes all potential sound events into a compact organization and all the potential events can be generated in parallelization.

Specifically, we compactly organize all potential sound events into a matrix-like representation $\mathcal{M}$, where the row indicates the sound event's temporal length and the column represents its start time. Each cell $C_{i,j}$ in $\mathcal{M}$ corresponds to a sound event with certain start time $j$ and end time $i+j$. A careful selection of the size of matrix $\mathcal{M}$ guarantees all potential sound events have their unique ``cell" in $\mathcal{M}$. The matrix-like compact organization enables fast computation due to matrix parallelization computation supported by most GPU/CPU engines. Similar idea has been used for video-based activity recognition\cite{bsn}.

Accompanying the dense proposal map are two score maps of the same size: $\mathcal{M}_t$ measuring a sound event proposal's temporal overlap with ground truth, and $\mathcal{M}_s$ sound event proposal motion smoothness map. The two score maps jointly help to measure sound event proposals' confidence to be a true positive sound event. Specifically, the potential proposal indicated by cell $C_{i,j}$ is associated with a event wise feature representation $f_{ij}$, a temporal overlap confidence score $s_{i,j}^t$ from $\mathcal{M}_t$ and a motion smoothness score $s_{i,j}^s$ from $\mathcal{M}_s$. $f_{i,j}$ derives from the averaging features learned by Backbone network spanning its temporal duration $[t_j, t_{i+j}]$, $f_{i,j} = \frac{1}{i} \sum_{k = j}^{i+j} f_k$.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.97\linewidth]{dense_proposal.pdf}
    \caption{Dense sound event proposal module. A matrix $\mathcal{M}$ is created to densely represent all potential sound events, each cell of the matrix corresponds to a sound event with certain start time and end time. The matrix maintains two score maps $\mathcal{M}_t$ and $\mathcal{M}_s$ of the same size. While $\mathcal{M}_t$ records proposals' temporal overlap with ground truth, $\mathcal{M}_s$ measures proposals' motion smoothness. The two score maps jointly represent a proposal's likeliness to be a true positive event. The motion jump, for example, largely violates the motion smoothness rule, so it is highly unlikely that the proposal is a true event.}
    \label{fig:dense_proposal}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Temporal Overlapness Score Map}

Temporal overlap score map $\mathcal{M}_t$ measures two sound events' temporal overlap degree. Here we adopt temporal intersection over union (tIoU). Given two sound events $s_1 = [t_{s1}, t_{e1}]$ at cell $\mathcal{M}_{i,j}$ and its ground truth temporal location $s_2 = [t_{s2}, t_{e2}]$, their tIoU at $\mathcal{M}_t^{i,j}$ is defined as,

\begin{equation}
    tIoU = \frac{ max\{0, min(t_{e1}, t_{e2}) - max(t_{s1}, t_{s2})\}}{max(t_{e1}, t_{e2}) - min(t_{s1}, t_{s2})}
\end{equation}

The higher of tIoU, the more likely the proposal at $C_{i,j}$ is a true positive proposal. Note that $\mathcal{M}_t$ is class-agnostic and its responsibility is to generate all potential event proposals\,(also can be thought as eventness proposal). In training, we train a $\mathcal{M}_t$ map regressor to learn the mapping from event wise feature representation to tIoU score. During test, we partially use the regressor to generate raw sound event proposals by choosing the large scores. To further enhance to regressor to fast localize a sound event, we propose a boundary sensitive tIoU $tIoU_{bs}$ which explicitly penalizes even a small temporal location alteration by multiplying an exponential term,

\begin{equation}
    tIoU_{bs} = tIoU \cdot e^{-w\cdot (1-tIoU)}
\end{equation}

where $w$ is a decay weight controlling tIoU decay rate, which we set 2. Our observation is that as a sound event temporal length increases, slight temporal alteration results in small tIoU score change. For example, given the ground truth sound event resides in frames [20,80] and the proposal is [22,82], the original tIoU will be very high (0.94 in this case) as  there  is  a  high  degree  of  overlap. This  does  not  give sufficient steering to the network to correctly align the event boundaries. Under our new metric, however, $tIoU_{bs} = 0.83$, the misalignment is prominently magnified so that the network receives enough clue to improve its localization capability.

\subsection{Spatial Motion Smoothness Map}
An independent sound event's spatial trajectory should be consistent and smooth. In other words, there should be no abrupt ``jump" along the sound event's trajectory, regardless of its motion status. We call this property as motion smoothness. Specifically, we model motion smoothness as the maximum neighboring location displacement along the sound event's motion path. Mathematically, for the sound event $C_{i,j}$'s sequential spatial location $\{l_0, \cdots, l_{i}\}$, the motion smoothness is defined as the maximum neighboring spatial location displacement $d$,

\begin{equation}
    \mathcal{M}_s^{(i,j)} = \max\{d(l_k - l_{k+1})\}_{k=0}^{i-1}
    \label{eq_motion_smoothness}
\end{equation}

$d(\cdot)$ is modelled as squared Euclidean distance. Small motion smoothness score serves as a strong indicator of the existence of a potential complete sound event because an inaccurate sound event localization inevitably introduces large ``motion jump". We hereby jointly use $\mathcal{M}_s$ and $\mathcal{M}_t$ to efficiently generate proposals. The introduction of motion smoothness map has two main advantages. First, it integrates temporal/spatial head so that the whole framework can be trained in a unified manner. Second, it explicitly adds temporal regularization to spatial location head, because spatial location head alone is a framewise regressor and no temporal priors are involved. Please see Fig.\ref{fig:dense_proposal} for dense event proposal illustration and its connection with $\mathcal{M}_t$ and $\mathcal{M}_s$.

\subsection{Framewise Spatial Location Regression}

The final component of SoundDet is the spatial location head. As the the sound source physical location or DoA can change over the duration of an event, the spatial location is computed in a framewise manner, using the framewise features extracted by the backbone network. We regress per-class spatial location for each frame and all inactive sound classes’ spatial location is set 0.

\subsection{Training Pipeline}

The overall SoundDet pipeline is shown in Fig.\ref{fig:pipeline}. The multi-channel raw waveform input is fed to the backbone neural network to efficiently learn framewise representation. The spatial location recovery head and dense event proposal generation head directly build on the learned framewise representation to learn framewise per-class sound event spatial locations and densely generate event proposals\,(per-event representation), respectively. The densely generated event proposals are fed to temporal recovery head to learn proposals' category label.

In practice, the temporal location head builds on event wise feature. It consists of three sub-heads: a multi-label classification head deciding the proposal's category label\,($head1$); A binary classification head deciding whether a proposal is a foreground or background event\,(we can call it eventness prediction for better understanding). A tIoU regression head to learn to regress tIoU score based on the event wise feature input. The three heads consist of several full connection layers (FC). For multi-label classification and binary classification, we adopt the standard cross entropy loss. For the tIoU regression head, we adopt mean squared error\,(MSE) loss. The computation of $\mathcal{M}_s$ requires no specific learning process because it directly derives from spatial location head, MSE loss is adopted again to reinforce event's smoothness.

\textbf{Data Imbalance} The dense sound event proposal map presented above covers all possible events, it inevitably leads to the data imbalance problem because most pre-generated proposals are negative and just very few proposals are positive. We adopt two strategies to mitigate this problem, 1) increase positive proposal number, in which we set a tIoU threshold $t_d$ and any event with the tIoU larger than the threshold is treated as positive proposal. 2) negative proposal random dropout, with the remaining negative samples, we randomly drop part of them with a probability $p_d$. By carefully setting $t_d$ and $p_d$ value, we can roughly keep positive and negative ratio to be 1:1.

\subsection{Inference}
\label{sec_inference}
During inference, the calculated $\mathcal{M}_s$ and $\mathcal{M}_t$ are jointly used to generate sound event proposals. The sound event proposal at cell $C_{i,j}$ is treated as positive proposal only if it passes two test: 1) $\mathcal{M}_s^{i,j} > d_s$ so that it satisfies motion smoothness rule; 2) $\mathcal{M}_t^{i,j} > d_t$ so that it resides in the designated temporal location $(t_j, t_{i+1})$ with a high confidence. $d_s$ and $d_t$ are predefined spatial motion smoothness and temporal overlapness threshold. Once it passes the two tests, the final event detection score derives from the multiplication of its motion smoothness score, temporal overlapness score and the corresponding multilabel classification score\,(($head1$) discussed earlier). The class label comes from the same multilabel classification head and the spatial location derives from spatial location head.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{tNMS_crop.pdf}
    \caption{SoundDet postprocess illustration: we apply inra-class NMS to suppress sound events of the same classes along the temporal axis. Given multiple different temporally-overlapping sound events, max-event clip process is applied to clip untruthful events. Different colors indicate different sound event classes.}
    \label{fig:post_process}
\end{figure}

\textbf{Event Refinement} The raw event candidates obtained above overlap in the temporal dimension. A post-processing is thus required to remove the redundancy (see Fig.\ref{fig:post_process}). The post-processing consists of two main parts: intra-class temporal non-maximum suppression (tNMS) and max-event clip. In intra-class tNMS, we compare within the same event class, for two events of the same class with temporal overlap (tNMS) above a predefined threshold, we delete the event with smaller confidence score. In max-event clip, we restrain the maximum number events that can happen at the same time. Max-event clip is a class-agnostic operation, for a set of events that happen at the same time, we sort them according the confidence score $s_i$ in descending order and only keep the top-M events. $M$ is a predefined max-event threshold. The post-processing is an iterative process, after which we get the final $K$ detected sound events from $N$ rw proposals $K\leqslant N$.

\section{Experiment}

\begin{table*}[t]
    \centering
    \small
    \caption{Segment-based evaluation result. We report result for different event length: All (overall), Small (0-2s), Medium (2-7s) and large ($> 7$s.) SoundDet is more advantageous at predicting longer sound events than EIN\cite{ein_v2}}
    \begin{tabular}{|p{3.3cm}<{\centering}|p{0.5cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}|p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}|p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}|p{0.45cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}p{0.4cm}<{\centering}|}
        \hline
        \multirow{2}{*}{Methods} &\multicolumn{4}{c|}{$ER_{20^\circ}(\downarrow)$} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$F_{20^\circ}(\uparrow)$} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$LE_{CD}(\downarrow)$($^\circ$)} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{$LR_{CD}(\uparrow)$} \\
        \cline{2-17}
        &All&Sma&Mid&Lar &  All&Sma&Med&Lar & All&Sma&Med&Lar & All&Sma&Med&Lar\\
        \hline
        SELDnet(foa)\shortcites{seld_dcase19} & 0.63 & 0.64 & 0.63 & 0.79 & 0.46 & 0.48 & 0.48 & 0.42 & 23.1 & 22.8 & 23.2 & 20.5 & 0.69 & 0.70 & 0.70 & 0.64 \\
        SELDnet(mic)\shortcites{seld_dcase19} & 0.66 & 0.68 & 0.66 & 0.79 & 0.43 & 0.44 & 0.45 & 0.42 & 24.2 & 23.9 & 23.6 & 22.8 & 0.66 & 0.65 & 0.67 & 0.66 \\
        EIN\cite{ein_v2} & \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{0.30} & 0.25 & 0.29 & \textbf{0.82} & \textbf{0.80} & 0.82 & 0.83 & \textbf{8.0} & \textbf{8.1} & 8.0 & \textbf{8.5} & \textbf{0.86} & \textbf{0.85} & 0.86 & 0.84 \\
        \hline
        SoundDet\_backbone(foa) & 0.74 & 0.79 & 0.75 & 0.74 & 0.38 & 0.37 & 0.40 & 0.38 & 21.7 & 22.2 & 16.7 & 21.7 & 0.57 & 0.57 & 0.51 & 0.57 \\
        SoundDet\_backbone(mic) & 0.80 & 0.85 & 0.82 & 0.90 & 0.30 & 0.29 & 0.31 & 0.34 & 28.6 & 29.5 & 28.6 & 21.0 & 0.56 & 0.56 & 0.57 & 0.54 \\
        SoundDet\_nomaxcorr(foa) & 0.90 & 0.91 & 0.90 & 0.90 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 79.4 & 79.3 & 79.8 & 79.0 & 0.50 & 0.51 & 0.53 & 0.48 \\
        SoundDet\_nomaxcorr(mic) & 0.90 & 0.95 & 0.95 & 0.90 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 87.3 & 85.9 & 87.4 & 91.3 & 0.48 & 0.48 & 0.49 & 0.49 \\
        \hline
        SoundDet\_nomots(foa) & 0.31 & 0.37 & 0.38 & 0.35 & 0.77 & 0.72 & 0.74 & 0.72 & 9.0 & 10.1 & 9.8 & 7.4 & 0.77 & 0.72 & 0.74 & 0.76 \\
        SoundDet(foa) & \textbf{0.25} & 0.31 & \textbf{0.24} & \textbf{0.26} & 0.81 & 0.79 & \textbf{0.83} & \textbf{0.86} & 8.3 & 8.5 & \textbf{7.7} & 8.1 & 0.82 & 0.80 & \textbf{0.89} & \textbf{0.85} \\
        \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \label{table_segment_based_eval_new}
\end{table*}

SoundDet is capable of estimating 2D/3D DoA, physical location, distance and motion of various sound events in polyphonic and moving scenario. In this experiment, we focus on indoor 3D DoA estimation tasks.

\textbf{Dataset} We evaluate SoundDet on TAU-NIGENS DCASE sound event detection and localization (SELD)\cite{dcase2020} dataset. It is an indoor synthetic sound recording collected by an Eigenmike spherical microphone array and available in two data formats: first-order ambisonics (FOA) and tetrahedral microphone array (MIC). MIC indicates four microphones with different orientations, usually in spherical coordinates.  FoA is known as B-format, consisting of omni-directional and  $x, y, z$ direction components. The possible azimuths of the sound recording span the whole range $[-180^\circ, 180^\circ)$ and the elevations lie in range $[-45^\circ, 45^\circ]$. Recorded sound events are either stationary or moving, and a maximum of two sound events overlap spatially and temporally. In total, 14 sound event categories are generated: alarm, crying baby, crash, barking dog, running engine, female scream, female speech, burning fire, footsteps, knocking on door, male scream, male speech, ringing phone and piano. Each sound recording is 1 minute long with sampling rate 24~kHz. For more details about this dataset, please refer to \cite{dcase2020}. There are 8 folds recordings, each of which has 100 1-min $.wav$ format recording. We follow the official splits and use 1-6 folds for train and the remaining 7-8 folds (200 1-min recordings) for test.

\subsection{Evaluation Metrics}

\textbf{Segment-based Metric} is the standard evaluation metric for existing methods \cite{seld_dcase19},\cite{doa_esti_multi_source},\cite{joint-measure}. It compares prediction and ground truth within non-overlapping short temporal segments\,(one sec.) and evaluates each frame's prediction result by jointly considering its predicted class and spatial location. For event detection evaluation, it calculates $F1$-score ($F_{\leq T^\circ}$) and Error Rate\,($ER_{\leq T^\circ}$), where a true positive prediction has to be within a spatial distance threshold with the corresponding ground truth spatial location\,(typically with an angular threshold $T = 20^\circ$). For event localization evaluation, we compute class dependent localization error $LE_{CD}$ which measures the average location distance between prediction and ground truth, and localization recall $LR_{CD}$ measures the ratio of how many such localizations were estimated within a class. For details, please refer to \cite{joint-measure}.

\textbf{Event-based Metric} draws inspiration from evaluation on 2D image object detection. It treats a sound event as an independent instance with specific start time, end time, framewise spatial location and confidence score belonging to one class\,(see Sec.\,\ref{sec_inference}). Rather than simply binarizing a detection as false or true detection with an arbitrary threshold, event-based metric comprehensively evaluates performance under various event confidence score and tIoU thresholds, calculating average precision (AP) and average recall (AR) for each class separately. Finally, mean average precision (mAP) and mean average recall\,(mAR) is accumulated by averaging AP and AR throughout classes respectively.

Specifically, given $K$ detected sound events $E_p = \{t_{s,i}, t_{e,i}, l_i, c_i, s_i\}_{i=1}^{K}$ and $N$ ground truth sound events $E_{gt} = \{t_{s,i}, t_{e,i}, l_i, c_i\}_{i=1}^{N}$ of the same class, we compute the average precision and average recall under tIoU in range $[0.1, 0.05, 1.0]$, where $0.05$ is the stepsize. For a particular tIoU, the AP and AP is computed by averaging precision scores and recall scores obtained under various confidence score in range $[0.1, 0.05, 1.0]$. Please note that we don't take any predefined tIoU and confidence score threshold because arbitrary chosen thresholds inevitably introduces human bias e.g. the choice of an entirely arbitrary angular threshold $T = 20^\circ$ in the segment based approach. Our proposed event-based metric instead provides a more objective and comprehensive metric.

\subsection{Comparing Methods}

We compare SoundDet with two existing methods: SELDNet\cite{seld_dcase19} and EIN\cite{ein_v2}. Since we focus on polyphonic and moving scenario, other relevant methods\cite{polyphonic_seld_icassp20}\cite{two-stage} that merely work on stationary and monophonic sound events are not discussed here. SELDNet\cite{seld_dcase19} jointly trains sound event detection and localization with CRNN network. It extracts Log-mel, GCC-PHAT, Intensity features as neural network input. Bidirectional GRU network is involved to model temporal dependency. SELDNet is treated as the baseline. EIN\cite{ein_v2} is a very recent work which models sound event detection and localization with two identical but separate neural networks as a multi-task learning format. It uses a log-mel spectrogram as input for event detection, and a GCC-PHAT approach for DoA estimation. The two parallel networks are independent but with soft parameter sharing. In addition, multi-head self-attention\cite{attention} is applied. EIN has large parameter size and is currently the state of the art approach under segment-based evaluation metric.

The above two methods generate framewise predictions, in which each frame is associated with class classification score and predicted DoA value. In order to generate a score that metrics event classification score and DoA closeness between predicted location and ground truth location, we propose to integrate mean classification score $s_c$ and mean DoA Euclidean distance $d_{DoA}$ together in the formula $s=s_c\cdot e^{-d_{DoA}}$. For fair comparison, we don't involve any data augmentation methods. We report the result for both FOA and MIC data format if possible.

Within SoundDet, we want to answer four main questions: 1. If our proposed MaxCorr band-pass filters is capable of learning useful representation for sound event spatio-temporal information recovery? 2. Event length impact on SoundDet and other methods. 3. Efficiency comparison in terms of parameters and inference time. 4. Quantitative comparison between SoundDet and other methods. To this end, we test four SoundDet variants: backbone only SoundDet with MaxCorr filter\,(SoundDet\_backbone) and without MaxCorr filter\,(SoundDet\_nomaxcorr). SoundDet without motion smoothness\,(SoundDet\_nomots). Moreover, in addition to report the overall metric, we further divide the events into Small\,(0-2s), Medium\,(2s-7s) and Large\,($>$7s), three categories and report result for them separately.

SoundDet network architecture is shown Table\,\ref{SoundDet_network}. Please note that the network might need to be slightly changed to process waveform with different input length, sample rate and label interval length. $H$ and $W$ indicate dense proposal map height and width, respectively, in our experiment $H=60$ and $W=60$, they can be directly modified to fit other input waveform temporal length or ground truth labelling resolution.

\textbf{Training Detail} We adopt multi-stage training strategy. First, we train the SoundDet backbone network in a framewise DoA regression and multilabel classification manner, like SELDNet\cite{seld_dcase19} and EIN\cite{ein_v2} do. Training SoundDet backbone neural network at first provides two advantages: 1) it helps to test if our proposed MaxCorr filter bank helps to learn essential representation for sound event temporal detection and spatial localization\,(as we compare in the experiment), 2) it guarantees to learn a reasonable framewise representation first so that the later joint training\,(combine the backbone and two heads) converges much faster. For the backbone training, we use SGD optimizer with an initial learning rate 0.5, the learning rate decays every 30 epochs with decay rate 0.7. With the pretrained Backbone network, we continue to train the whole SoundDet network with the same optimizer.

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \small
    \includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{master_qi_blue.pdf}
    \caption{Two learned MaxCorr filters, they are controlled by different frequency cutoffs and four time shifts. The red dots are the filter symmetric point.}
    \label{fig:learned_maxcorr_filter}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{sounddet_expvis2.pdf}
    \caption{Qualitative comparison. We visualize detected sound events' temporal location\,(SED, left side) and Azimuth-only DoA (right side). While framewise based methods\,(SELDNet and EIN) produce discrete and segmented event, SoundDet maximally keeps an event's completeness and continuity. Pay attention to dotted grey box and different color indicates different sound event class.}
    \label{qualitative_result}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Experiment Results}

\begin{table*}[h]
    \small
    \centering
    \caption{Event-based evaluation result, model parameter number and input feature. We report mAP/mAR under different event temporal length threshold. The “Input” column labels are: 0. Raw waveform, 1. Log-Mel, 2. GCC-PHAT, 3. Intensity.}
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|cccc|cccc|}
    \hline
    \multirow{2}{*}{Methods} & \multirow{2}{*}{Params}&\multirow{2}{*}{Input} &\multicolumn{4}{c|}{mAP$(\uparrow)$} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{mAR$(\uparrow)$} \\
    \cline{4-11}
    &&&Overall&Small&Medium&Large&Overall&Small&Medium&Large\\
    \hline
    SELDNet(foa)& 0.5M&1,3&0.087 & 0.038 & 0.092 & 0.157 & 0.152 & 0.079 & 0.096 & 0.097\\
    SELDNet(mic)& 0.5M&1,2&0.079 & 0.035 & 0.081 & 0.143 & 0.140 & 0.067 & 0.099 & 0.086\\
    EIN\cite{ein_v2} & 26.0M&1,2&0.134&0.088 &  0.187 & 0.183 & 0.256 & 0.175 & 0.186 & 0.257 \\
    \hline
    SoundDet\_backbone(foa) &  10.0 M&0&0.040&0.025 &  0.055 & 0.090 & 0.096 & 0.066 & 0.051 & 0.033 \\
    SoundDet\_backbone(mic) &  10.0 M&0&0.035&0.021 &  0.091 & 0.090 & 0.094 & 0.065 & 0.049 & 0.027 \\
    SoundDet\_nomaxcorr(foa) &  10.0 M&0&0.025&0.015 &  0.034 & 0.080 & 0.063 & 0.040 & 0.032 & 0.014 \\
    SoundDet\_nomaxcorr(mic) &  10.0 M&0&0.017&0.059 &  0.016 & 0.044 & 0.041 & 0.017 & 0.079 & 0.016 \\
    \hline
    SoundDet\_nomots(foa) &  13.0 M&0&0.117&0.062 &  0.173 & 0.152 & 0.247 & 0.174 & 0.159 & 0.232 \\
    SoundDet(foa) &  13.0 M&0&\textbf{0.197}&\textbf{0.098} & \textbf{0.201} & \textbf{0.216} & \textbf{0.294} & \textbf{0.189} & \textbf{0.223} & \textbf{0.289} \\
    \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \label{table_event_based_eval}
\end{table*}

The segment-based evaluation result is shown in Table\,\ref{table_segment_based_eval_new}. We can see that, by involving MaxCorr filter banks, our backbone-only SoundDet achieves comparable performance comparing with SELDNet\cite{seld_dcase19}. SELDNet extracts Log-mel, GCC-PHAT and Intensity features\,(see Table\,\ref{table_event_based_eval}) as its neural network input, replacing these hand-crafted features with learnable MaxCorr filter bank helps to achieve similar performance, even with 1D convolution. If disabling SoundDet to learn between-channel correlation\,(SoundDet\_nomaxcorr), we can witness a huge performance drop in both FOA and MIC format, especially the high event detection error rate and large DoA error angle. This shows that our proposed MaxCorr filter bank is capable of learning essential representations for recovering temporal and spatial information. Actually, we observed a fast convergence of the between-channel time shift parameters\,(see Eqn.\ref{maxcorr-filter}), SoundDet quickly updates time shift parameters in the very first couple of training iterations and swiftly achieves a relatively stable state. Two learned MaxCorr filters are shown in Fig.\ref{fig:learned_maxcorr_filter}, from which we can observe that different MaxCorr filters have learned different time shifts and frequency cutoffs. These learned frequency-selective and phase-sensitive MaxCorr filter bank is of vital importance for sound event representation learning.

Both SoundDet and SELDNet work better for FOA format than MIC format. Framewise based learning\,(both SoundDet, SELDNet and EIN) shows no obvious difference in estimating events with different temporal length, which is reasonable because of their framewise processing property. The whole SoundDet\,(combine backbone and two heads) far outperforms SELDNet baseline and achieves comparable performance with EIN with much less parameter number. Specifically, SoundDet shows advantage on longer sound event estimation. It thus attests the necessity of directly modelling ``sound-object" when it comes to events with longer temporal length or more complex motion trajectory. Excluding motion smoothness largely reduces the performance, we observed involving motion smoothness map greatly helps the neural network to accurate localize sound events.

The event-based evaluation result is shown in Table\,\ref{table_event_based_eval}, from which we can observe that SoundDet outperforms all existing methods in both the mAP and mAR metric. This shows that the segment-based metrics in current use do not comprehensively reflect an algorithm's performance. Rather than focusing on a local segment evaluation, the event-based metric highlights an event's completeness and continuity and SoundDet is naturally designed to meet these requirements. This advantage is echoed by the qualitative comparison in Fig.\,\ref{qualitative_result}. We can clearly see that SELDNet and EIN inevitably contain many mixed sound events and frequently cut complete events into small disconnected segments. The situation becomes more serious when faced with overlapping situation. However, SoundDet better avoids this dilemma because by design it treats events as complete instances, rather than discrete segments.

\begin{table}[h]
    \centering
    \small
    \caption{Inference time on Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-7920X CPU. The waveform pre-processing time is contained for SELDNet and EIN.}
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
        \hline
        SELDNet & EIN & SoundDet \\
        \hline
        1.20~s & 2.20~s & 1.25~s \\
        \hline
    \end{tabular}

    \label{inference_time_test}
\end{table}

We further report the average inference time of different methods to process a one-minute long audio in Table.\,\ref{inference_time_test}, showing that it is almost twice as fast as EIN, and comparable to SELDNet. In summary, SoundDet is capable of learning a sound event's spatial, temporal and class information from raw waveforms, achieving competing performance under existing segment-based metrics and leading results on the proposed event-based metrics.

\section{Conclusion}
We have introduced a number of innovations in this paper that attempt to unify the currently disparate fields of object detection in computer vision, with event detection and localization in audio settings. We also abandon prior approaches that resort to hand-crafted pre-processing and transformation of the multi-channel waveforms, and instead directly consume raw data. To this end, we propose a more object-centric approach to measuring the performance of sound event detection and localization through metrics of mAP and mAR. It is our hope that this alternative view will seed further development in this space. One potential future research direction is to design more elegant learnable filter banks.

\section{Acknowledgement}
We thank Qi Ou from Department of Earth Science, University of Oxford for helpful discussion. We also appreciate reviewers' constructive feedback to improve the work.

\begin{table}[H]
    \centering
    \small
    \caption{SoundDet architecture illustration. The layer follow $name@kernelsize,stride$ format. MaxCorr here indicates MaxCorrelation filter bank. cn indicates class number. FC is fully connection layer. B is the batchsize, T is the waveform temporal length. All convolution layers are followed by a batch normalization layer and Relu activation layer and FC layers are followed by leaky Relu activation layer.}
    \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
        \hline
        layer & filter num  & output size \\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Input: [B,4,T]}\\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{SoundDet Backbone Network} \\
        \hline
        MaxCorr@251,75 & 256 & [B, T/75,256]\\
        \hline
        conv1d@3,2 & 128 & [B, T/150,128] \\
        \hline

        conv1d@3,2 & 128 & [B, T/300,128] \\
        \hline
        conv1d@3,2 & 256 & [B, T/600,256] \\
        \hline
        conv1d@3,2 & 256 & [B, T/1200,512] \\
        \hline
        conv1d@3,2 & 512 & [B, T/2400,512] \\
        \hline
        conv1d@3,2 & 512 & [B, T/4800,512] \\
        \hline
        conv1d@3,2 & 1024 & [B, T/9600,1024] \\
        \hline
        deconv1d@3,2 & 512 & [B, T/4800,512] \\
        \hline
        deconv1d@3,2 & 512 & [B, T/2400, 512] \\
        \hline
        biGRU & 512 & [B, T/2400,512] \\
        \hline
        conv1d@3,1 & 512 & [B, T/2400,512] \\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Event Multilabel Classify} \\
        \hline
        FC & 512 & [B, H, W, 512] \\
        \hline
        FC & 256 & [B, H, W, 256] \\
        \hline
        FC & class num & [B, H, W, cn] \\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Eventness Classify} \\
        \hline
        FC & 256 & [B, H, W, 256] \\
        \hline
        FC & 1 & [B, H, W, 1] \\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{tIoU Map Regression} \\
        \hline
        FC & 256 & [B, H, W, 256] \\
        \hline
        FC & 1 & [B, H, W, 1] \\
        \hline
        \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{Spatial Location Head} \\
        \hline
        FC & 512 & [B, T/2400, 512] \\
        \hline
        FC & 512 & [B, T/2400, 512] \\
        \hline
        FC & 256 & [B, T/2400, 256] \\
        \hline
        FC & classnum$\times$3 & [B,T/2400,cn$\times$3] \\
        \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \label{SoundDet_network}
\end{table}