Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Interpolating between small- and large-g expansions using Bayesian model mixing

A. C. Semposki, R. J. Furnstahl, and D. R. Phillips
Phys. Rev. C 106, 044002 – Published 20 October 2022
PDFHTMLExport Citation

Abstract

Bayesian model mixing (BMM) is a statistical technique that can be used to combine models that are predictive in different input domains into a composite distribution that has improved predictive power over the entire input space. We explore the application of BMM to the mixing of two expansions of a function of a coupling constant g that are valid at small and large values of g respectively. This type of problem is quite common in nuclear physics, where physical properties are straightforwardly calculable in strong and weak interaction limits or at low and high densities or momentum transfers, but difficult to calculate in between. Interpolation between these limits is often accomplished by a suitable interpolating function, e.g., Padé approximants, but it is then unclear how to quantify the uncertainty of the interpolant. We address this problem in the simple context of the partition function of zero-dimensional ϕ4 theory, for which the (asymptotic) expansion at small g and the (convergent) expansion at large g are both known. We consider three mixing methods: linear mixture BMM, localized bivariate BMM, and localized multivariate BMM with Gaussian processes. We find that employing a Gaussian process in the intermediate region between the two predictive models leads to the best results of the three methods. The methods and validation strategies we present here should be generalizable to other nuclear physics settings.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
4 More
  • Received 14 June 2022
  • Accepted 13 September 2022

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.106.044002

©2022 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Nuclear PhysicsGeneral Physics

Authors & Affiliations

A. C. Semposki1,*, R. J. Furnstahl2,†, and D. R. Phillips1,‡

  • 1Department of Physics and Astronomy and Institute of Nuclear and Particle Physics, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, USA
  • 2Department of Physics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA

  • *as727414@ohio.edu
  • furnstahl.1@osu.edu
  • phillid1@ohio.edu

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

Supplemental Material (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 106, Iss. 4 — October 2022

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
CHORUS

Article Available via CHORUS

Download Accepted Manuscript
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    The partition function in Eq. (3), denoted the true model, overlaid with two series expansions (red denoting the weak coupling expansion and blue the strong coupling expansion) truncated at various orders, here labeled Ns and Nl [see Eq. (4)].

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    The piecewise cosine mixing function, evaluated at the MAP values of θ, shown as the solid black curve, for the case Ns=Nl=2. The dashed green, dashed orange, and dash-dotted purple lines represent the MAP values of the three parameters θ1, θ2, and θ3, which give the location of transition points in the function [see Eq. (15)].

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    The PPD median and 68% credibility interval for the linear mixture model [Eq. (18)] are shown in solid green and as a shaded green band, respectively, overlaid on the Ns = 2 (dashed red curve) and Nl = 2 (dashed blue curve) small-g and large-g expansions. The location in g of the three mixture parameters of the piecewise cosine mixture function, θ1, θ2, and θ3, are indicated by the solid light purple lines. The true model curve is shown in solid black as a reference, with the black dots around it comprising the randomly distributed data set used in this analysis. This data has a 1% error from the true curve added to it.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    The PPD median and 68% credibility interval, with all of the curves as for Fig. 3, but for the case Ns=Nl=5.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5

    The results of computing the bivariate model mixing are shown for (a) Ns=2, Nl=2 and (b) Ns=5, Nl=5, using the informative error model. The result from computing f [Eq. (20)] is shown in green, with the 68% credibility interval shown as the green shaded region.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 6
    Figure 6

    A comparison between the uninformative error model (left panel) and the informative error model (right panel), shown side by side applied to the case Ns=3, Nl=3. The greater size of the uncertainty in the gap when the uninformative error model is used is evident in the left panel.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 7
    Figure 7

    The results of employing the Matérn 3/2 kernel in a GP to cross the gap between the two series expansions, truncated at (a)  Ns = 2, Nl = 2 and (b) Ns = 5, Nl = 5. Compare this result to Fig. 5, which did not include the GP.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 8
    Figure 8

    A comparison of the results of the method from Sec. 4 and that of Sec. 5, applied to the Ns=3 and Nl=3 cases. The reduction in the credibility interval is evident in the latter method, as is the lessening of the curvature in the gap between the expansions.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 9
    Figure 9

    The normalized weights of each model (Ns,Nl=2, shown in typical red and blue) computed across the input space g, for each method: (a) linear mixture model, (b) bivariate BMM, and (c) trivariate BMM including the GP. Note the green in panel (c) is the weights curve for the GP interpolant.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 10
    Figure 10

    The normalized weights of each model as a function of the input space g, as in Fig. 9, though now for Ns,Nl=5. Note the decrease in the region in which the GP dominates in this figure, in contrast to the case in Fig. 9.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 11
    Figure 11

    Overlay of the FPR method curves for different values of α in the Ns,Nl=3 case with the mixed model results using the GP. Inset: A closeup of the central mixing region, where it is easier to note the deviation of the FPR results from the true solution as the value of α decreases.

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review C

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×