4.5 Article

Bayesian truncation errors in chiral effective field theory: Nucleon-nucleon observables

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
Volume 96, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.024003

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [PHY-1306250, PHY-1614460]
  2. NUCLEI SciDAC Collaboration under Department of Energy [DE-SC0008533]
  3. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) [DE-SC0008533] Funding Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien
  5. Division Of Physics [1306250] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  6. Division Of Physics
  7. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1614460] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chiral effective field theory (EFT) predictions are necessarily truncated at some order in the EFT expansion, which induces an error that must be quantified for robust statistical comparisons to experiment. In previouswork, a Bayesian model for truncation errors of perturbative expansions was adapted to EFTs. The model yields posterior probability distribution functions (pdfs) for these errors based on expectations of naturalness encoded in Bayesian priors and the observed order-by-order convergence pattern of the EFT. A first application was made to chiral EFT for neutron-proton scattering using the semilocal potentials of Epelbaum, Krebs, and Mei beta ner (EKM). Here we extend this application to consider a larger set of regulator parameters, energies, and observables as a general example of a statistical approach to truncation errors. The Bayesian approach allows for statistical validations of the assumptions and enables the calculation of posterior pdfs for the EFT breakdown scale. The statistical model is validated for EKM potentials whose convergence behavior is not distorted by regulator artifacts. For these cases, the posterior for the breakdown scale is consistent with EKM assumptions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available