Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Assessing Correlated Truncation Errors in Modern Nucleon-Nucleon Potentials

Published 20 Feb 2024 in nucl-th, hep-ph, and physics.data-an | (2402.13165v1)

Abstract: We test the BUQEYE model of correlated effective field theory (EFT) truncation errors on Reinert, Krebs, and Epelbaum's semi-local momentum-space implementation of the chiral EFT ($\chi$EFT) expansion of the nucleon-nucleon (NN) potential. This Bayesian model hypothesizes that dimensionless coefficient functions extracted from the order-by-order corrections to NN observables can be treated as draws from a Gaussian process (GP). We combine a variety of graphical and statistical diagnostics to assess when predicted observables have a $\chi$EFT convergence pattern consistent with the hypothesized GP statistical model. Our conclusions are: First, the BUQEYE model is generally applicable to the potential investigated here, which enables statistically principled estimates of the impact of higher EFT orders on observables. Second, parameters defining the extracted coefficients such as the expansion parameter $Q$ must be well chosen for the coefficients to exhibit a regular convergence pattern -- a property we exploit to obtain posterior distributions for such quantities. Third, the assumption of GP stationarity across lab energy and scattering angle is not generally met; this necessitates adjustments in future work. We provide a workflow and interpretive guide for our analysis framework, and show what can be inferred about probability distributions for $Q$, the EFT breakdown scale $\Lambda_b$, the scale associated with soft physics in the $\chi$EFT potential $m_{\rm eff}$, and the GP hyperparameters. All our results can be reproduced using a publicly available Jupyter notebook, which can be straightforwardly modified to analyze other $\chi$EFT NN potentials.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (17)
  1. R. Machleidt and D. R. Entem, Phys. Rept. 503, 1 (2011), arXiv:1105.2919 .
  2. I. Tews et al., Few Body Syst. 63, 67 (2022), arXiv:2202.01105 [nucl-th] .
  3. S. Weinberg, Phys. Lett. B 251, 288 (1990).
  4. S. Weinberg, Nucl. Phys. B 363, 3 (1991).
  5. M. Cacciari and N. Houdeau, J. High Energy Phys 09, 039 (2011), arXiv:1105.5152 .
  6. A. O’Hagan, The American Statistician 73, 69 (2019).
  7. N. Cressie, Terra Nova 4, 613 (1992).
  8. C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (The MIT Press, 2006).
  9. B. Acharya and S. Bacca,   (2021), arXiv:2109.13972 [nucl-th] .
  10. M. Poudel and D. R. Phillips, J. Phys. G 49, 045102 (2022), [Erratum: J.Phys.G 49, 099601 (2022)], arXiv:2110.01451 [nucl-th] .
  11. C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning, Adaptive computation and machine learning series (University Press Group Limited, Cambridge, MA, 2006).
  12. P. La France and P. Winternitz, Journal de Physique 41, 1391 (1980).
  13. E. Epelbaum et al., Eur. Phys. J. A 56, 92 (2020), arXiv:1907.03608 [nucl-th] .
  14. L. S. Bastos and A. O’Hagan, Technometrics 51, 425 (2009).
  15. P. Millican, “modern_nn_potentials,” Python package available for download from Github.
  16. N. Silver, The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail-but Some Don’t (Penguin Publishing Group, 2012).
  17. E. Epelbaum, PoS CD2018, 006 (2019).

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Tweets

Sign up for free to view the 1 tweet with 0 likes about this paper.