拉格朗日派与全球拟合的可信度：Muong-2实验的估计分析
194 浏览量
更新于2024-07-16
收藏 1.46MB PDF 举报
"Muon g-2估计：一个人可以相信有效的拉格朗日派和全局拟合吗？"
这篇文章探讨了在粒子物理学中一个重要的问题，即是否可以信赖有效的拉格朗日量（Effective Lagrangians）以及全球拟合（Global Fits）在理论预测与实验数据之间建立准确联系的能力。标题中的"Muon g-2"指的是μ子的磁矩异常，这是一个精确测量且对标准模型（Standard Model, SM）进行检验的关键物理量。μ子的磁矩与经典理论预测相比存在微小但显著的差异，这可能暗示着超出标准模型的新物理现象。
文章指出，隐藏局部对称性（Hidden Local Symmetry, HLS）模型是一种强大的理论工具，它可以包含并统一描述多种物理过程。当这个模型考虑到适当的对称性破缺机制时，它转化为一个被称作 Broken Hidden Local Symmetry (BHLS) 的有效拉格朗日量。这样的理论框架能够处理复杂的相互作用，使得μ子g-2这样的精细计算成为可能。
全局拟合是理论与实验数据匹配的一种统计方法，通过这种方式，可以同时考虑多个独立的观测结果来优化理论参数。在本研究中，全局拟合被用来解释电子-正电子湮灭（e+e- annihilation）过程产生的六种不同最终状态，包括π+π-, π0, ωπ0, απ0, η'π0, K+K-以及KLKS等。这些过程与μ子g-2的计算密切相关，因为它们涉及到同样的基本粒子相互作用。
作者们通过这种方法，不仅分析了e+e-湮灭过程，还考察了τ轻子（τ-lepton）的衰变，这些数据对于理解和验证BHLS模型的预言至关重要。通过全局拟合，他们尝试找到一组理论参数，可以最好地符合所有这些过程的实验数据。
Eur.Phys.J.C(2015)75:613的这篇文章由M.Benayoun、P.David、L.DelBuono和F.Jegerlehner等人撰写，他们在法国和德国的多个研究机构工作。这项研究是在2015年进行的，并在同年的12月被接受发表，表明了开放获取（Open Access）的原则，使得科学社区和公众都能访问到这篇重要的研究。
这篇论文深入研究了μ子g-2异常背后的有效理论和全球拟合方法，其目标是提高我们对基本粒子物理的理解，特别是探索可能存在的超越标准模型的新物理现象。这种研究对于未来粒子物理学的发展，尤其是在大型强子对撞机（LHC）和其他高能物理实验中的新发现预测，具有重要意义。
613 Page 6 of 29 Eur. Phys. J. C (2015) 75 :613
those collected using the Initial State Radiation (ISR) mode
by KLOE [36–38], BaBar [39,40]orBESSIII[41]; further-
more, the normalization uncertainties reported for each of the
ISR data samples have all a peculiar structure which deserves
each a specific treatment—this is the subject of the next sub-
section.
A constant global scale uncertainty, as those affecting the
data samples from CMD2, SND or BESSIII, can be writ-
ten β = 1 + λ, where λ is a random variable with range
]−1, +∞[.AsE(λ) = 0 and E (λ
2
) = σ
2
with σ 1, the
gaussian approximation for λ is safe [45,46]. A data sample
subject to such a global scale uncertainty provides an indi-
vidual contribution to an effective global χ
2
glob.
which should
a priori be written:
χ
2
=[m − M(a) − λ A]
T
V
−1
[m − M(a) − λ A]+
λ
2
σ
2
(3)
where m, M, V , and a have the same definitions as in
Sect. 4.1, while λ and σ have just been defined. As for A,even
if intuitively one may prefer A = m, the choice A = M(a)
has been shown to drop out any biasing issue
13
[42,45,70].
Assuming that the unknown scale factor λ is solely of
experimental origin—and, then, independent of the model
parameters a—the solution to ∂χ
2
/∂λ = 0 provides its most
probable value λ
0
[34]. After substitution, Eq. (3) becomes
χ
2
=[m − M(a)]
T
W
−1
[m − M(a)]
with W = V + σ
2
AA
T
, (4)
which exhibits a modified error covariance matrix W and
only depends on the (physics) model parameters. More pre-
cisely, the single recollection of the scale uncertainty λ is
the occurrence of its variance σ
2
in the modified covariance
matrix W .
However, Eq. (4) clearly points toward a difficulty if the
model is not numerically known beforehand as the modified
covariance matrix becomes a-dependent when setting the
unbiasing choice A = M. In this case, the parameter error
covariance matrix provided by the χ
2
minimization might
not be easy to interpret.
The way out is to define iterative procedures; this is allu-
sively stated in [42], but explicitly considered in [44] as solu-
tion to the so-called “Peelle’s Pertinent Puzzle”
14
[43], pro-
vided a good starting approximate solution is known before-
hand; however, defining such a tool might be a delicate task if
the underlying model is non-linear, as quite usual in particle
13
This does not mean that the choice A = m necessarily leads to a
significantly biased solution as shown below.
14
Peelle’s reference is no longer of common access, but its main
content—which closely resembles the D’Agostini issue raised in [42]—
is reproduced in [44].
physics. Such a procedure has already been followed and suc-
cessfully worked out in [47] in order to derive through a mini-
mization procedure the parton density functions from several
measured spectra. When dealing with samples of form factor
and/or cross section data, other appropriate iterative methods
should be defined.
The starting step of the iteration implies choosing some
initial value for A,sayA = A
0
. Without further information,
the best approximation one can choose is obviously A
0
≡
m, the experimental spectrum itself. Quite interestingly, this
turns out to start iterating with λ = 0(σ = 0inEq.(4)), i.e.
β = 1, a unit scale factor; this makes the connection with the
iterative method followed in [47].
Then the minimization of the χ
2
in Eq. (4) with A = A
0
≡
m is performed using the minuit procedure [71] which yields
the (step # 0) solution
15
M
0
via the fitted parameter vector
value a
0
. The next step (# 1) consists in minimizing Eq. (4)
using A = M
0
≡ M(a
0
), which is easily implemented in the
procedure and, at convergence, minuit provides the step # 1
solution M(a
1
). This stepwise procedure.
16
is followed until
some convergence criterion is met. As in each minimization
procedure the covariance matrix is constant, the interpreta-
tion of the parameter error covariance matrix is canonical.
The convergence speed of the iterative procedure cannot
be guessed ab initio but may be expected fast, referring to the
fit of the parton density functions where the convergence is
essentially reached at the first iteration [47]. This is confirmed
by the Monte Carlo studies reported in Appendix A.
Nevertheless, one may infer that the number of iteration
steps is smaller for a starting guess for A close to the actual
model than for an arbitrary choice; clearly, as the choice
A = m (the experimental spectrum) should be the closest to
the actual model, one may think that it should minimize the
number of iterations needed to reach convergence. Addition-
ally, this choice does not imply any a priori assumption on
the parameter vector to be fitted.
Among the data samples one deals within the BHLS-based
global fit method, most have been collected in scan mode,
essentially at Novosibirsk, and carry a constant scale uncer-
tainty merging several effects. This is especially the case for
the e
+
e
−
→ π
+
π
−
data samples collected by the CMD2
[52,53] and SND [54] detectors; this also covers the case of
the BESSIII data sample [41].
In order to simplify and unify the notations in the follow-
ing discussion, it is suitable to perform the change of random
variable λ = σμ. Then the statistical properties for λ prop-
agate to E(μ) = 0 and E(μ
2
) = 1 and, defining in addition
B = σ A,Eq.(3) above becomes
15
The analysis method in [34,35] actually stops there; the present anal-
ysis aims at going beyond.
16
Each such step is defined as a full (minuit) minimization procedure
where the covariance matrix is unchanged until convergence is reached.
123
剩余28页未读，继续阅读
2023-03-09 上传
2024-10-16 上传
2024-10-16 上传
weixin_38656297
- 粉丝: 2
- 资源: 907
我的内容管理
展开
最新资源
- WPF渲染层字符绘制原理探究及源代码解析
- 海康精简版监控软件：iVMS4200Lite版发布
- 自动化脚本在lspci-TV的应用介绍
- Chrome 81版本稳定版及匹配的chromedriver下载
- 深入解析Python推荐引擎与自然语言处理
- MATLAB数学建模算法程序包及案例数据
- Springboot人力资源管理系统：设计与功能
- STM32F4系列微控制器开发全面参考指南
- Python实现人脸识别的机器学习流程
- 基于STM32F103C8T6的HLW8032电量采集与解析方案
- Node.js高效MySQL驱动程序：mysqljs/mysql特性和配置
- 基于Python和大数据技术的电影推荐系统设计与实现
- 为ripro主题添加Live2D看板娘的后端资源教程
- 2022版PowerToys Everything插件升级，稳定运行无报错
- Map简易斗地主游戏实现方法介绍
- SJTU ICS Lab6 实验报告解析
