Abstract

The number of low-energy constants (LECs) in chiral effective field theory ($\ensuremath{\chi}\mathrm{EFT}$) grows rapidly with increasing chiral order, necessitating the use of Markov chain Monte Carlo techniques for sampling their posterior probability density function. For this we introduce a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) algorithm and sample the LEC posterior up to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) in the two-nucleon sector of $\ensuremath{\chi}\mathrm{EFT}$. We find that the sampling efficiency of HMC is three to six times higher compared to an affine-invariant sampling algorithm. We analyze the empirical coverage probability and validate that the NNLO model yields predictions for two-nucleon scattering data with largely reliable credible intervals, provided that one ignores the leading-order EFT expansion parameter when inferring the variance of the truncation error. We also find that the NNLO truncation error dominates the error budget.

Highlights

  • Chiral effective field theory (χ EFT) descriptions [1,2,3,4] of the strong nuclear interaction depend on low-energy constants (LECs) that govern the strength of the various interaction terms

  • Several contact LECs are introduced at next-to-leading order (NLO) and we find that the LEC posterior exhibits noticeable correlations in certain directions

  • We find that the truncation errors at NLO and next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) employed in this paper are more than twice as large compared to the corresponding error magnitudes used in Ref. [14]

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Chiral effective field theory (χ EFT) descriptions [1,2,3,4] of the strong nuclear interaction depend on low-energy constants (LECs) that govern the strength of the various interaction terms Their numerical values must be inferred from data and are best described by a posterior probability density function (PDF). This parametric uncertainty will combine with the inherent discrepancy of χ EFT, i.e., the epistemic gap between model predictions and real world observations. We adopt independent and identical Gaussian PDFs for all contact LECs with zero mean and standard deviation α = 5 This is a rather weak prior which again makes no assumption of correlations. Note that isospinbreaking effects enter at NLO and only in the 1S0 partial wave

Elastic nucleon-nucleon scattering observables
Likelihood and EFT truncation error
Choice of reference values
Estimating c
HAMILTONIAN MONTE CARLO
From potential energy to posterior probability
Advancing the HMC sampler
Leapfrogging Hamiltonian dynamics
Tuning in to the target distribution
Leapfrog step size and number of iterations
Mass matrix
SAMPLING LEC POSTERIORS USING HAMILTONIAN MONTE CARLO
Sampling strategy
LEC posteriors
Convergence towards a stationary distribution
The Gelman-Rubin statistic R
The integrated autocorrelation time τ
Effective sample size and efficiency of HMC
Consequences of improper tuning of the HMC hyperparameters
Multimodality
The posterior predictive distribution
Empirical coverage probability
Findings
CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call