4.5 Article

Quantifying uncertainties and correlations in the nuclear-matter equation of state

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW C
卷 102, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.054315

关键词

-

资金

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Foundation
  2. U.S. Department of Energy, the Office of Science, the Office of Nuclear Physics, and SciDAC [DE-SC00046548, DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  3. National Science Foundation [PHY-1614460, PHY-1913069, PHY-1630782]
  4. NUCLEI SciDAC Collaboration under U.S. Department of Energy MSU [RC107839-OSU]
  5. U.S. Department of Energy [DE-FG02-93ER-40756]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We perform statistically rigorous uncertainty quantification (UQ) for chiral effective field theory (LEFT) applied to infinite nuclear matter up to twice nuclear saturation density. The equation of state (EOS) is based on high-order many-body perturbation theory calculations with nucleon-nucleon and three-nucleon interactions up to fourth order in the chi EFT expansion. From these calculations our newly developed Bayesian machine-learning approach extracts the size and smoothness properties of the correlated EFT truncation error. We then propose a novel extension that uses multitask machine learning to reveal correlations between the EOS at different proton fractions. The inferred in-medium chi EFT breakdown scale in pure neutron matter and symmetric nuclear matter is consistent with that from free-space nucleon-nucleon scattering. These significant advances allow us to provide posterior distributions for the nuclear saturation point and propagate theoretical uncertainties to derived quantities: the pressure and incompressibility of symmetric nuclear matter, the nuclear symmetry energy, and its derivative. Our results, which are validated by statistical diagnostics, demonstrate that an understanding of truncation-error correlations between different densities and different observables is crucial for reliable UQ. The methods developed here are publicly available as annotated Jupyter notebooks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据