1: \chapter{Analysis I} \label{chap:analysis1}
2:
3: \section{Fitting the data}
4:
5: Let's begin by using the statistical errors, i.e. $\beta=0$: these fits are driven mostly by the lightest state, the $0^{++}$. For direct mixing, as the flux tube loses its orientation for N=2, we should start by looking at Figure~\ref{fig:b0ncdirN2} from the preceding chapter. By using only the $0^+$ and the $2^+$ states when fitting the parameter, states at higher M are predictive. We see that the $1^-$ agrees within $1\sigma$, but the $1^+$ is as close to a state with M=3 as it is to M=5. The question of lattice spin assignments is further called into question by the $0^-$. Here, the model predicts a state with M=J=4 quite close to the lattice $0^-$. The lightest state with $0^-$ quantum numbers in the Isgur-Paton model has M=8 and has mass around 16 in our units, much too heavy to match the lattice estimate. The first excitation of $0^+$ is included in the fit. The model's prediction is too high by about $4\sigma$. We should remember that the model's adiabatic approximation separating the radial from the phonon modes has little justification and will contribute to the systematic error.
6:
7: When N=3 we encounter our first 2 dimensional parameter estimation problem. The posterior density function (pdf) is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:b0ncdirN3}. Despite the coarse graining of parameter space, we see a clearly defined maximum in the pdf. The best $\chi^2$ is at $\gamma=0.54, \alpha=1.89$. Examining the best fit spectrum, we see a qualitatively good fit. Except for the $2^{+-}$, everything used in the fit is within $2\sigma$ of the lattice values. As the mixing is just a constant, no properties of the states can influence the magnitude of the mixing, which might account for the discrepancies at higher M. These states are larger and thus less likely to collapse to the ball pictured for this mechanism. The discrepancy in the $C=-$ sector continues for the M=4 and 5 states. Here we see good predictive agreement for the $C=+$ sector (allowing for the spin assignment at M=4), but the $C=-$ sector does not agree at higher M. If we are concerned with an 0/4 ambiguity, then we also have to consider a 1/3 ambiguity. In that case, there is a J=M=$3^{\pm-}$ at the right location in the spectrum, but then the $3^{++}$ should couple to what is assigned to J=1.
8:
9: What should we make of the mess in the heavier part of the spectrum? First, we should stress that these states are not included when determining $\chi^2$ and hence the parameters -- they are free predictions of the model, which is what raises the question of ambiguities in the conventional assignment of spin to certain lattice operators. A preliminary exploration~\cite{Johnson:1998ev} showed that for the ++ sector the J=0 should be distinguished from the J=4. But states with more complicated quantum numbers and higher spin require operators of more complicated construction, and the situation regarding which states a (finite) operator couples to is much less clear~\cite{Morningstar:1999rf}. It is possible that the $1^{\pm+}$ operator is good while the $1^{\pm-}$ is being misled by the J=3, but the issue requires further investigation. Exploratory calculations on a new technique of constructing lattice operators for arbitrary spin are discussed in Chapter~\ref{chap:lattice}.
10:
11: For N=4 and 5, the qualitative features of the spectrum do not change dramatically. The low lying states reproduce the lattice spectrum reasonably well, and the higher states continue to follow the spin ambiguity predictions. Turning to the posterior, Figure~\ref{fig:b0ncdirN5}, at N=5 we start seeing evidence of a second peak near $\gamma=0$. This peak is not included when we take the local quadratic approximation to compute the errors on $\gamma$ and $\alpha$, but its presence should be noted. The main peak has also shifted closer to the $\gamma=0$ axis.
12:
13: The lattice spectrum has been extrapolated to N=$\infty$ using a correction linear in (1/$N^2$)~\cite{Teper:1997tq}. Repeating our fitting procedure with these lattice values, we get the posterior and spectrum of Figures~\ref{fig:b0ncdirN6}. Now the second peak has swamped the first to dominate the posterior, though there is a little of the first peak left. The best fit gives $\gamma=-.042(190)$ with an error consistent with $\gamma=0$. Were $\gamma$ to equal zero would require a delicate balance of the elasticity and the L\"{u}scher correction to cancel. We will look at the behavior of $\gamma$ as a function of (1/$N^2$) later in the analysis and compare its extrapolation to N=$\infty$ with $\gamma$ fit to the extrapolated spectrum.
14:
15: Looking now at the adjoint mixing mechanism, we can start with the N=2, as there still exists an adjoint loop mixing with the fundamental loop, which is plotted in the figure. Our prior nearly misses the peak, Figure~\ref{fig:b0ncadjN2}, but as its location moves into the prior for later N, we should feel confident we are seeing the global minimum. The low spin spectrum fits quite well -- all states are within 1.5$\sigma$. The higher spin states also display good agreement.
16:
17: At N=3, the model starts showing signs of difficulty in fitting the lattice data. Including both radial excitations and the $C=-$ sector contributes many more states to the fit. Still, we see a well defined peak in $\chi^2$ space and can determine $\gamma_0 = .576$ and $\alpha_0 = 3.56$. Looking at its best fit spectrum, the model is in general qualitative agreement with the lattice data. The most obvious discrepancy is the $2^{\pm-}$. At higher spins, the model consistently is too heavy. In the $C=-$ sector, the oddly low $1^{\pm-}$ does compare well with the $3^{\pm-}$. The magnitude of the radial splitting seems a little off as well, again perhaps because of the adiabatic approximation.
18: As $N\rightarrow\infty$, nothing dramatic happens. The values of the best fit parameters, Table~\ref{table:ParametersB0}, do change somewhat. The best fit $\gamma$ are still positive, and $\alpha\sim 3$. Except for the lowest J=0 state in either C sector, the model's predictions are too heavy, especially at higher spin.
19:
20: For the vertex model we have only three cases to look at. From N=3 to
21: N=5, we find a positive $\gamma$ and a mixing $\alpha\sim 2$,
22: Figures~\ref{fig:b0ncverN3} through \ref{fig:b0ncverN5}. For J=0 and 2, the model generally reproduces the features of the lattice spectrum. The robustness of the Isgur-Paton model is shown in the consistency of results across mixing mechanisms. At higher spin, things are a mess, except for $4^{-+}$. That is, if we persist in comparing the lattice J=1 state to M=5. Allowing for more spin ambiguity, we might compare these states to M=3. In that case, the $3^{\pm+}$ would be in good agreement, while the $3^{\pm-}$ might also be as well; the lowest state $3^{\pm-}$ in the model is mostly $\psi_V$, while the lattice operator is not constructed to couple to such a state~\cite{Teper:1999}. At this point, such remarks are only conjecture -- a much more thorough technique needs to be developed, as in Chapter~\ref{chap:lattice}. As $N\rightarrow\infty$, the features remain the same. One state that does not fit well is the $0^{+-}$, which the lattice claims is well below the model's prediction for the $4^{\pm-}$.
23:
24: \newpage
25:
26: \begin{figure}[!t]
27: \centering
28: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncdirN3.eps}
29: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3. The model's predictions are shown by 'o', and the corresponding lattice states by '.' with errorbars. The x-axis is labelled by the phonon number M. The relationship between M and the spin J is given in Appendix~\ref{chap:IPreview}, Table~\ref{table:MtoJ}. See Subsection~\ref{subsec:fig} for more details.}
30: \label{fig:b0ncdirN3}
31: \end{figure}
32:
33: \begin{figure}[!t]
34: \centering
35: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncdirN4.eps}
36: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
37: \label{fig:b0ncdirN4}
38: \end{figure}
39:
40: \begin{figure}[!t]
41: \centering
42: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncdirN5.eps}
43: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
44: \label{fig:b0ncdirN5}
45: \end{figure}
46:
47: \begin{figure}[!t]
48: \centering
49: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncdirN6.eps}
50: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=$\infty$.}
51: \label{fig:b0ncdirN6}
52: \end{figure}
53:
54: \begin{figure}[!t]
55: \centering
56: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncadjN2.eps}
57: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=2.}
58: \label{fig:b0ncadjN2}
59: \end{figure}
60:
61: \begin{figure}[!t]
62: \centering
63: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncadjN3.eps}
64: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
65: \label{fig:b0ncadjN3}
66: \end{figure}
67:
68: \begin{figure}[!t]
69: \centering
70: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncadjN4.eps}
71: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
72: \label{fig:b0ncadjN4}
73: \end{figure}
74:
75: \begin{figure}[!t]
76: \centering
77: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncadjN5.eps}
78: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
79: \label{fig:b0ncadjN5}
80: \end{figure}
81:
82: \begin{figure}[!t]
83: \centering
84: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncadjN6.eps}
85: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=$\infty$.}
86: \label{fig:b0ncadjN6}
87: \end{figure}
88:
89:
90: \begin{figure}[!t]
91: \centering
92: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncverN3.eps}
93: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
94: \label{fig:b0ncverN3}
95: \end{figure}
96:
97:
98: \begin{figure}[!t]
99: \centering
100: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncverN4.eps}
101: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
102: \label{fig:b0ncverN4}
103: \end{figure}
104:
105: \begin{figure}[!t]
106: \centering
107: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b0ncverN5.eps}
108: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
109: \label{fig:b0ncverN5}
110: \end{figure}
111:
112:
113: \newpage
114:
115: \begin{table}[!h]
116: \centering
117: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
118: N & direct & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
119: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
120: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
121:
122: 2 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ & 4.618 & & 7.946 & & 9.324 & & 10.56 & & 11.67 & \\
123: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ & 7.482 & & 9.963 & & 11.09 & & 12.13 & & 13.11 & \\\hline
124:
125: 3 & & 4.278 & 6.171 & 7.261 & 9.154 & 8.509 & 10.4 & 9.638 & 11.53 &
126: 10.67 & 12.57 \\
127: & & 6.707 & 8.60 & 9.051 & 10.94 & 10.11 & 12.00 & 11.09 & 12.99 &
128: 12.02 & 13.91 \\\hline
129:
130: 4 & & 4.146 & 6.072 & 7.151 & 9.076 & 8.407 & 10.33 & 9.542 & 11.47 &
131: 10.58 & 12.51 \\
132: & & 6.601 & 8.526 & 8.955 & 10.88 & 10.02 & 11.94 & 11.01 & 12.93 &
133: 11.93 & 13.86 \\\hline
134:
135: 5 & & 4.062 & 5.715 & 7.145 & 8.798 & 8.431 & 10.08 & 9.589 & 11.24 &
136: 10.65 & 12.3 \\
137: & & 6.612 & 8.265 & 8.998 & 10.65 & 10.07 & 11.73 & 11.08 & 12.73 &
138: 12.02 & 13.67 \\\hline
139:
140: $\infty$ & & 4.009 & 5.144 & 7.219 & 8.354 & 8.552 & 9.687 & 9.747 &
141: 10.88 & 10.83 & 11.97 \\
142: & & 6.279 & 7.853 & 9.155 & 10.29 & 10.26 & 11.39 & 11.28 & 12.42 &
143: 12.24 & 13.38 \\\hline
144:
145: \end{tabular}
146: \caption{The spectrum for direct mixing at various N. For each N, the
147: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
148: the radial excitation.}
149: \label{table:b0ncdir}
150: \end{table}
151:
152:
153: \begin{table}[!h]
154: \centering
155: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
156: N & adjoint & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
157: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
158: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
159:
160: 2 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ & 4.717 & & 7.643 & & 8.888 & & 10.02 & & 11.07 & \\
161: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ & 7.04 & & 9.432 & & 10.51 & & 11.51 & & 12.46 \\\hline
162:
163: 3 & &
164: 4.217 & 6.225 & 7.417 & 9.196 & 8.754 & 10.44 & 9.961 &
165: 11.57 & 11.06 & 12.6 \\ & &
166: 6.801 & 8.64 & 9.329 & 10.98 & 10.46 & 12.03 & 11.51 &
167: 13.02 & 12.49 & 13.94 \\\hline
168:
169: 4 & &
170: 4.083 & 6.134 & 7.316 & 9.124 & 8.664 & 10.38 & 9.879 &
171: 11.51 & 10.99 & 12.54 \\ & &
172: 6.697 & 8.572 & 9.244 & 10.92 & 10.38 & 11.98 & 11.43 &
173: 12.97 & 12.42 & 13.89 \\\hline
174:
175: 5 & &
176: 3.999 & 5.813 & 7.322 & 8.874 & 8.698 & 10.15 & 9.934 &
177: 11.3 & 11.06 & 12.36 \\ & &
178: 6.687 & 8.336 & 9.283 & 10.71 & 10.43 & 11.79 & 11.5 &
179: 12.79 & 12.5 & 13.72 \\\hline
180:
181: $\infty$ & &
182: 3.919 & 5.78 & 7.258 & 8.849 & 8.639 & 10.13 & 9.879 &
183: 11.28 & 11.01 & 12.34 \\ & &
184: 6.621 & 8.312 & 9.226 & 10.69 & 10.38 & 11.77 & 11.45 &
185: 12.77 & 12.45 & 13.71 \\\hline
186:
187: \end{tabular}
188: \caption{The spectrum for adjoint mixing at various N. For each N, the
189: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
190: the radial excitation.}
191: \label{table:b0ncadj}
192: \end{table}
193:
194:
195: \begin{table}[!h]
196: \centering
197: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
198: N & vertex & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
199: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
200: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
201:
202: 3 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ &
203: 4.4 & 6.036 & 6.839 & 9.049 & 10.31 & 7.975 & 9.007 &
204: 11.45 & 12.49 & 6.765 \\
205: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ &
206: 6.742 & 8.5 & 8.748 & 10.86 & 11.92 & 9.719 & 10.62 &
207: 12.91 & 13.84 & 8.849 \\\hline
208:
209: 4 & &
210: 4.203 & 6.014 & 6.878 & 9.031 & 10.29 & 8.113 & 9.238 &
211: 11.43 & 12.47 & 7.448 \\ & &
212: 6.735 & 8.484 & 8.905 & 10.84 & 11.91 & 9.961 & 10.94 &
213: 12.9 & 13.83 & 9.649 \\\hline
214:
215: 5 & &
216: 4.074 & 5.606 & 7.006 & 8.713 & 10.01 & 8.331 & 9.531 &
217: 11.17 & 12.24 & 7.947 \\ & &
218: 6.762 & 8.185 & 9.102 & 10.58 & 11.66 & 10.22 & 11.26 &
219: 12.67 & 13.61 & 10.28 \\\hline
220:
221: \end{tabular}
222: \caption{The spectrum for vertex mixing at various N. For each N, the
223: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
224: the radial excitation.}
225: \label{table:b0ncver}
226: \end{table}
227:
228:
229: \clearpage
230:
231: \section{Adjusting the weightings}
232:
233: How do things change when $\beta=.05$? Actually, not by very much. By adding $\pm5$\% to the error, we de-weight the states with the tightest statistical errors, which are the low lying states of small radius on the order of the thickness of the flux tube, allowing the radial excitations to take on more of a role in determining the best fit parameters. We are also trying to quantify what we can expect of a nonrelativistic model with a drastic adiabatic approximation when compared to our best estimates of the pure glue spectrum from the lattice.
234:
235: Again considering direct mixing first, we look at the log of the
236: posterior as a function in parameter space,
237: Figure~\ref{fig:b5ncdirN3}. We note a broader, smoother peak located
238: at roughly the same location $(\gamma_0, \alpha_0)$. Consistency in
239: the value of the best fit parameters implies that we have not done
240: anything too drastic by manipulating the weightings. A broader
241: posterior actually implies a more conservative estimate of the
242: parameters, in the sense of having a larger errorbar (see~\cite{Bretthorst:1988 ,Sivia:1996}). The
243: spectrum, for N=3, Figure~\ref{fig:b5ncdirN3}, shows good agreement
244: across the lower states -- except for the $0^{--}$ and the $2^{-+}$,
245: all the predictions are within the expanded errorbars. The higher
246: states are again consistent with ambiguous spin assignments at M=4 and
247: 5. As $N\rightarrow\infty$, Figures~\ref{fig:b5ncdirN4} through \ref{fig:b5ncdirN6}, the features of the model are essentially the same. The prediction for the $0^{--}$ is too low, which could also be explained if the tighter errorbar of the $0^{++}$ were pulling the whole spectrum towards the state which it should least fit. At N=$\infty$, where we are fitting parameters to an extrapolation of the lattice data, our fit for $\gamma_0 = -.046(295)$ is negative, but within its error is consistent with zero. We will more closely examine the behavior of $\gamma$ and $\alpha$ as functions of N in the next chapter.
248:
249: For the adjoint mixing mechanism at N=2, we see a very elongated posterior (and a miniscule value for $\chi^2$). The peak is still in about the same location, however, which is good. The length of the peak tells us that a wide range of parameter values are consistent with the lattice data. When N=3, our peak takes on a more traditional shape at $\gamma_0 = .44(36) \;,\; \alpha_0 = 3.33(60)$. Looking at the spectrum, Figure~\ref{fig:b5ncadjN2}, we see good agreement for J=0 and 2 and the usual mess for the higher spins. As $N\rightarrow\infty$, the $1^{\pm-}$ states are nowhere close, suggesting either they are spin 3 or that the model does not have the necessary structure to explain the data.
250:
251: As before, we have only three cases for vertex mixing. For each N,
252: the peak is well defined, giving parameter values in Table~\ref{table:ParametersB5}. The spectrum again demonstrates the mechanism's complex structure.
253: At M=5, the direction of the C splitting is in the right direction to
254: follow the lattice assignments, but far too large in magnitude. These
255: ambiguities highlight the need for better determination of the spin
256: assignments.
257:
258: \begin{table}[!h]
259: \centering
260: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
261: N & direct & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
262: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
263: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
264:
265: 2 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ &
266: 4.519 & & 7.869 & & 9.255 & & 10.49 & &
267: 11.61 & \\
268: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ &
269: 7.413 & & 9.902 & & 11.03 & & 12.08 & &
270: 13.06 & \\\hline
271:
272: 3 & &
273: 4.206 & 5.948 & 7.237 & 8.98 & 8.504 & 10.25 & 9.647 &
274: 11.39 & 10.69 & 12.43 \\ & &
275: 6.693 & 8.435 & 9.058 & 10.8 & 10.12 & 11.87 & 11.12 &
276: 12.86 & 12.05 & 13.79 \\\hline
277:
278: 4 & &
279: 4.005 & 5.758 & 7.079 & 8.832 & 8.361 & 10.11 & 9.516 &
280: 11.27 & 10.57 & 12.32 \\ & &
281: 6.543 & 8.296 & 8.926 & 10.68 & 10 & 11.75 & 11 &
282: 12.76 & 11.94 & 13.69 \\\hline
283:
284: 5 & &
285: 3.959 & 5.535 & 7.082 & 8.658 & 8.383 & 9.958 & 9.552 &
286: 11.13 & 10.62 & 12.19 \\ & &
287: 6.558 & 8.134 & 8.961 & 10.54 & 10.05 & 11.62 & 11.06 &
288: 12.63 & 12 & 13.58 \\\hline
289:
290: $\infty$ & &
291: 3.925 & 5.137 & 7.137 & 8.349 & 8.47 & 9.682 & 9.666 &
292: 10.88 & 10.75 & 11.97 \\ & &
293: 6.35 & 7.849 & 9.073 & 10.29 & 10.17 & 11.39 & 11.2 &
294: 12.41 & 12.16 & 13.37 \\\hline
295:
296:
297: \end{tabular}
298: \caption{The spectrum for direct mixing with adjusted weightings at various N. For each N, the
299: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
300: the radial excitation.}
301: \label{table:b5ncdir}
302: \end{table}
303:
304:
305: \begin{table}[!h]
306: \centering
307: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
308: N & adjoint & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
309: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
310: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
311:
312: 2 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ &
313: 4.714 & & 7.68 & & 8.938 & & 10.08
314: & & 11.14 & \\
315: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ &
316: 7.075 & & 9.486 & & 10.57 & & 11.58
317: & & 12.53 & \\\hline
318:
319: 3 & &
320: 4.086 & 5.987 & 7.357 & 9.01 & 8.717 & 10.27 & 9.94 &
321: 11.41 & 11.06 & 12.46 \\ & &
322: 6.732 & 8.463 & 9.298 & 10.83 & 10.44 & 11.89 & 11.5 &
323: 12.88 & 12.49 & 13.81 \\\hline
324:
325: 4 & &
326: 3.869 & 5.82 & 7.2 & 8.88 & 8.58 & 10.16 & 9.82 &
327: 11.31 & 10.95 & 12.36 \\ & &
328: 6.568 & 8.341 & 9.169 & 10.72 & 10.32 & 11.79 & 11.39 &
329: 12.79 & 12.39 & 13.73 \\\hline
330:
331: 5 & &
332: 3.826 & 5.577 & 7.227 & 8.691 & 8.628 & 9.987 & 9.882 &
333: 11.15 & 11.02 & 12.22 \\ & &
334: 6.573 & 8.164 & 9.218 & 10.56 & 10.38 & 11.65 & 11.46 &
335: 12.66 & 12.47 & 13.6 \\\hline
336:
337: $\infty$ & &
338: 3.733 & 5.422 & 7.186 & 8.57 & 8.602 & 9.879 & 9.867 &
339: 11.06 & 11.01 & 12.13 \\ & &
340: 6.511 & 8.052 & 9.193 & 10.46 & 10.37 & 11.55 & 11.46 &
341: 12.57 & 12.47 & 13.52 \\\hline
342:
343: \end{tabular}
344: \caption{The spectrum for adjoint mixing with adjusted weightings at various N. For each N, the
345: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
346: the radial excitation.}
347: \label{table:b5ncadj}
348: \end{table}
349:
350:
351: \begin{table}[!h]
352: \centering
353: \begin{tabular}{|lc|cc|cc|cc|cc|cc|} \hline
354: N & vertex & $0^{++}$ & $0^{--}$ & $2^{\pm+}$ & $2^{\pm-}$ &
355: $3^{\pm+}$ & $3^{\pm-}$ & $4^{\pm+}$ & $4^{\pm-}$ & $1^{\pm+}$ &
356: $1^{\pm-}$ \\\hline
357:
358: 3 & $m_{J^{PC}}$ &
359: 4.456 & 5.825 & 6.95 & 8.884 & 10.16 & 8.106 & 9.15 &
360: 11.31 & 12.36 & 6.678 \\
361: & $m_{J^{PC}}^\star$ &
362: 6.75 & 8.345 & 8.869 & 10.72 & 11.79 & 9.863 & 10.77 &
363: 12.79 & 13.73 & 8.85 \\\hline
364:
365: 4 & &
366: 4.111 & 5.701 & 6.879 & 8.787 & 10.07 & 8.147 & 9.296 &
367: 11.23 & 12.29 & 7.28 \\ & &
368: 6.682 & 8.254 & 8.931 & 10.64 & 11.72 & 10.01 & 11.01 &
369: 12.72 & 13.66 & 9.609 \\\hline
370:
371: 5 & &
372: 3.992 & 5.469 & 6.962 & 8.607 & 9.912 & 8.3 & 9.51 &
373: 11.09 & 12.16 & 7.848 \\ & &
374: 6.702 & 8.086 & 9.071 & 10.49 & 11.58 & 10.2 & 11.24 &
375: 12.6 & 13.54 & 10.24 \\\hline
376:
377: \end{tabular}
378: \caption{The spectrum for vertex mixing with adjusted weightings at various N. For each N, the
379: first mass is the lowest state in that channel, and the second mass is
380: the radial excitation.}
381: \label{table:b5ncver}
382: \end{table}
383:
384: \newpage
385:
386: \begin{figure}[!t]
387: \centering
388: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncdirN3.eps}
389: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
390: \label{fig:b5ncdirN3}
391: \end{figure}
392:
393: \begin{figure}[!t]
394: \centering
395: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncdirN4.eps}
396: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
397: \label{fig:b5ncdirN4}
398: \end{figure}
399:
400: \begin{figure}[!t]
401: \centering
402: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncdirN5.eps}
403: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
404: \label{fig:b5ncdirN5}
405: \end{figure}
406:
407: \begin{figure}[!t]
408: \centering
409: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncdirN6.eps}
410: \caption{The direct mixing posterior and spectrum for N=$\infty$.}
411: \label{fig:b5ncdirN6}
412: \end{figure}
413:
414:
415: \begin{figure}[!t]
416: \centering
417: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncadjN2.eps}
418: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=2.}
419: \label{fig:b5ncadjN2}
420: \end{figure}
421:
422: \begin{figure}[!t]
423: \centering
424: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncadjN3.eps}
425: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
426: \label{fig:b5ncadjN3}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429: \begin{figure}[!t]
430: \centering
431: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncadjN4.eps}
432: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
433: \label{fig:b5ncadjN4}
434: \end{figure}
435:
436: \begin{figure}[!t]
437: \centering
438: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncadjN5.eps}
439: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
440: \label{fig:b5ncadjN5}
441: \end{figure}
442:
443: \begin{figure}[!t]
444: \centering
445: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncadjN6.eps}
446: \caption{The adjoint mixing posterior and spectrum for N=$\infty$.}
447: \label{fig:b5ncadjN6}
448: \end{figure}
449:
450:
451: \begin{figure}[!t]
452: \centering
453: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncverN3.eps}
454: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=3.}
455: \label{fig:b5ncverN3}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458: \begin{figure}[!t]
459: \centering
460: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncverN4.eps}
461: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=4.}
462: \label{fig:b5ncverN4}
463: \end{figure}
464:
465: \begin{figure}[!t]
466: \centering
467: \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{b5ncverN5.eps}
468: \caption{The vertex mixing posterior and spectrum for N=5.}
469: \label{fig:b5ncverN5}
470: \end{figure}
471:
472: