1: % ****** Start of file apssamp.tex ******

2: %

3: %   This file is part of the APS files in the REVTeX 4 distribution.

4: %   Version 4.0 of REVTeX, August 2001

5: %

6: %   Copyright (c) 2001 The American Physical Society.

7: %

8: %   See the REVTeX 4 README file for restrictions and more information.

9: %

10: % TeX'ing this file requires that you have AMS-LaTeX 2.0 installed

11: % as well as the rest of the prerequisites for REVTeX 4.0

12: %

13: % See the REVTeX 4 README file

14: % It also requires running BibTeX. The commands are as follows:

15: %

16: %  1)  latex apssamp.tex

17: %  2)  bibtex apssamp

18: %  3)  latex apssamp.tex

19: %  4)  latex apssamp.tex

20: %

21: \documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

22: %\documentclass[preprint,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

23: 

24: % Some other (several out of many) possibilities

25: %\documentclass[preprint,aps]{revtex4}

26: %\documentclass[preprint,aps,draft]{revtex4}

27: %\documentclass[prb]{revtex4}% Physical Review B

28: 

29: \usepackage{graphicx}% Include figure files

30: \usepackage{dcolumn}% Align table columns on decimal point

31: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

32: \usepackage{rotating}

33: 

34: %\nofiles

35: 

36: \voffset=+25mm

37: 

38: %%%%% Personal Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

39: %\newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

40: \def\dfrac#1#2{\displaystyle\frac{#1}{#2}}

41: %\newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}

42: \newcommand{\ovl}[1]{\overline{#1}}

43: \newcommand{\wt}[1]{\widetilde{#1}}

44: \newcommand{\eq}[1]{eq.(\ref{#1})}

45: \newcommand{\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

46: \newcommand{\p}{\partial}

47: \newcommand{\slas}[2]{{{#1}\hspace{-5pt}{/}}_{#2}}

48: \newcommand{\slal}[2]{{{#1}\hspace{-8pt}{/}}_{#2}}

49: \newcommand{\kslash}{k\kern-1ex /}

50: \newcommand{\pslash}{p\kern-1ex /}

51: \newcommand{\qslash}{q\kern-1ex /}

52: \newcommand{\lslash}{l\kern-1ex /}

53: \newcommand{\sslash}{s\kern-1ex /}

54: %\newcommand{\Dslash}{{\cal D}\kern-1.2ex /}

55: \newcommand{\Dslash}{D\kern-1.2ex /}

56: \newcommand{\bpsi}{\overline{\psi}}

57: \newcommand{\bc}{\overline{c}}

58: \newcommand{\tr}{{\rm tr}}

59: %\newcommand{\vev}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}

60: \newcommand{\VEV}[1]{\left\langle{\rm T} #1\right\rangle}

61: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

62: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}

63: %\newcommand{\eqn}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

64: \newcommand{\Tr}{{\rm Tr}}

65: %\newcommand{\vev}[1]{\langle #1 \rangle}

66: \newcommand{\vev}[1]{\left\langle #1 \right\rangle}

67: %\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

68: %\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

69: \newcommand{\be}{\[}

70: \newcommand{\ee}{\]}

71: \newcommand{\bd}{\begin{description}}

72: \newcommand{\ed}{\end{description}}

73: \newcommand{\la}{\langle}

74: \newcommand{\ra}{\rangle}

75: \newcommand{\ben}{\begin{eqnarray}}

76: \newcommand{\een}{\end{eqnarray}}

77: \newcommand{\nn}{\nonumber}

78: \def\lsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

79: \def\gsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}

80: \def\simgt{\rlap{\lower 6.0 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 2.5pt \hbox {$>$}}

81: \def\simlt{\rlap{\lower 6.0 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 2.5pt \hbox {$<$}}

82: \newcommand{\cont}{{\rm cont}}

83: \newcommand{\latt}{{\rm latt}}

84: \newcommand{\tad}{{\rm tad}}

85: \newcommand{\wi}{{\rm WI}}

86: \newcommand{\mf}{{\rm MF}}

87: \newcommand{\msbar}{{\overline {\rm MS}}}

88: \newcommand{\spr}{{s^\prime}}

89: \newcommand{\csw}{{c_{\rm SW}}}

90: \newcommand{\hk}{{\hat k}}

91: \newcommand{\mm}{{\cal M}}

92: \newcommand{\ce}{{\it c}_{\it E}}

93: \newcommand{\cb}{{\it c}_{\it B}}

94: \newcommand{\lqcd}{{\Lambda}_{\rm QCD}}

95: %\newcommand{\pos}{{p^*}}

96: %\newcommand{\qos}{{q^*}}

97: %\newcommand{\qoss}{{q^*_s}}

98: %\newcommand{\qosd}{{q^*_d}}

99: \newcommand{\lo}{{(0)}}

100: \newcommand{\nlo}{{(1)}}

101: \newcommand{\mplo}{{m_p^{(0)}}}

102: \newcommand{\intlat}{{\int_{-\pi}^{\pi}\frac{d^4 k}{(2\pi)^4}}}

103: \newcommand{\mplomf}{{{\tilde m_p}^{(0)}}}

104: \newcommand{\dmplomf}{{{\tilde m_p}^{\tad}}}

105: \newcommand{\mpl}{{m_{p2}}}

106: \newcommand{\mph}{{m_{p1}}}

107: \newcommand{\mpllo}{{m_{p2}^{(0)}}}

108: \newcommand{\mphlo}{{m_{p1}^{(0)}}}

109: \newcommand{\mpllomf}{{{\tilde m_{p2}}^{(0)}}}

110: \newcommand{\mphlomf}{{{\tilde m_{p1}}^{(0)}}}

111: \def\ovec{\partial_\mu\hspace{-0.4cm}\raisebox{1.8ex}{$\rightarrow$}}

112: \def\antivec{\partial_\mu\hspace{-0.4cm}\raisebox{1.8ex}{$\leftarrow$}}

113: \newcommand{\crd}{\color{black}}

114: \newcommand{\crw}{\color{white}}

115: \newcommand{\crb}{\color{blue}}

116: \newcommand{\crr}{\color{red}}

117: \newcommand{\crm}{\color{magenta}}

118: \newcommand{\crg}{\color{green}}

119: \newcommand{\op}{{\cal O}}

120: \newcommand{\ceff}{{c_{\rm eff}}}

121: %%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OF MACROS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

122: 

123: 

124: \voffset = -.2 in

125: \begin{document}

126: 

127: \preprint{UTCCS-P-44, UTHEP-567, HUPD-0801, KANAZAWA-08-06}

128: 

129: \title{2+1 Flavor Lattice QCD toward the Physical Point}% Force line breaks with \\

130: 

131: \author{

132:  S.~Aoki${}^{a,b}$,

133: % N.~Ishii${}^{a}$,

134:  K.-I.~Ishikawa${}^{d}$,

135:  N.~Ishizuka${}^{a,c}$,

136:  T.~Izubuchi${}^{b,e}$,

137:  D.~Kadoh${}^{c}$,

138:  K.~Kanaya${}^{a}$,

139:  Y.~Kuramashi${}^{a,c}$,

140:  Y.~Namekawa${}^{c}$,

141:  M.~Okawa${}^{d}$,

142: % K.~Sasaki${}^{a}$,

143:  Y.~Taniguchi${}^{a,c}$,

144:  A.~Ukawa${}^{a,c}$,

145:  N.~Ukita${}^{c}$,

146:  T.~Yoshi\'e${}^{a,c}$\\

147: (PACS-CS Collaboration)

148: }

149: \affiliation{

150:  ${}^a$Graduate School of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan\\

151:  ${}^b$Riken BNL Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton,

152: New York 11973, USA\\

153:  ${}^c$Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan\\

154:  ${}^d$Graduate School of Science, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan\\

155:  ${}^e$Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa,

156:        Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan

157: }

158: 

159: %\author{Ann  Author}

160: % \altaffiliation[Also at ]{Physics Department, XYZ University.}%Lines break automatically or can be forced with \\

161: %\author{Second Author}%

162: % \email{Second.Author@institution.edu}

163: %\affiliation{%

164: %Authors' institution and/or address\\

165: %This line break forced with \textbackslash\textbackslash

166: %}%

167: 

168: %\author{Charlie Author}

169: % \homepage{http://www.Second.institution.edu/~Charlie.Author}

170: %\affiliation{

171: %Second institution and/or address\\

172: %This line break forced% with \\

173: %}%

174: 

175: 

176: \date{\today}% It is always \today, today,

177:              %  but any date may be explicitly specified

178: 

179: \begin{abstract}

180: We present the first results of the

181: PACS-CS project which aims to simulate 2+1

182: flavor lattice QCD on the physical point 

183: with the nonperturbatively $O(a)$-improved

184: Wilson quark action and the Iwasaki gauge action.

185: Numerical simulations are carried out at $\beta=1.9$, corresponding to

186: the lattice spacing of $a=0.0907(13)$~fm, 

187: on a $32^3\times 64$ lattice with the use of the domain-decomposed 

188: HMC algorithm to reduce the up-down quark mass. Further 

189: algorithmic improvements make possible the simulation whose up-down

190: quark mass is as light as the physical value. 

191: The resulting pseudoscalar meson masses range from 702~MeV down to

192:  156~MeV, which clearly exhibit the presence of chiral logarithms.

193: An analysis of the pseudoscalar meson sector 

194: with SU(3) chiral perturbation theory reveals that

195: the next-to-leading order corrections are large at the physical strange quark mass.

196: In order to estimate the physical up-down quark mass, we employ the

197: SU(2) chiral analysis expanding the strange quark contributions 

198: analytically around the physical strange quark mass. 

199: The SU(2) low energy constants ${\bar l}_3$ and ${\bar l}_4$ are comparable with

200: the recent estimates by other lattice QCD calculations. 

201: We determine the physical point together with the lattice spacing   

202: employing $m_\pi$, $m_K$ and $m_\Omega$ as input.

203: The hadron spectrum extrapolated to the physical point shows

204: an agreement with the experimental values 

205: at a few \% level of statistical errors,

206: albeit there remain possible cutoff effects.

207: We also find that our results of 

208: $f_\pi=134.0(4.2)$~MeV, $f_K=159.4(3.1)$~MeV and $f_K/f_\pi=1.189(20)$

209: where renormalization is carries out perturbatively at one loop and 

210: the errors are statistical only, are compatible with the experimental values.

211: For the physical quark masses we obtain $m_{\rm ud}^\msbar=2.527(47)$~MeV and

212: $m_{\rm s}^\msbar=72.72(78)$~MeV extracted from the axial-vector

213: Ward-Takahashi identity with the perturbative renormalization factors.

214: We also briefly discuss the results for the static quark potential.

215: \end{abstract}

216: 

217: \pacs{11.15.Ha, 12.38.-t, 12.38.Gc}% PACS, the Physics and Astronomy

218:                              % Classification Scheme.

219: %\keywords{Suggested keywords}%Use showkeys class option if keyword

220:                               %display desired

221: \maketitle

222: 

223: 

224: \section{Introduction}

225: \label{sec:intro}

226: 

227: Lattice QCD is expected to be an ideal tool to understand 

228: the nonperturbative dynamics of strong interactions from first principles.

229: In order to fulfill this promise, the first

230: step should be to establish QCD as the fundamental theory of the

231: strong interaction by reproducing basic physical quantities, {\it e.g.,} the

232: hadron spectrum, with the systematic errors under control.

233: This is about to be attained thanks to

234: the recent progress of simulation algorithms and the 

235: availability of increasingly more powerful computational resources.

236:  

237: Among various systematic errors, the two most troublesome 

238: are quenching effects and chiral extrapolation uncertainties.

239: After the systematic studies on the hadron spectrum in

240: quenched and two-flavor QCD\cite{cppacs_nf0,cppacs_nf2,jlqcd_nf2}, 

241: the CP-PACS and JLQCD collaborations performed 

242: a 2+1 flavor full QCD simulation employing the nonperturbatively 

243: $O(a)$-improved Wilson quark action\cite{csw} and the Iwasaki gauge 

244: action\cite{iwasaki} on a (2 fm$)^3$ lattice 

245: at three lattice spacings\cite{cppacs/jlqcd1,cppacs/jlqcd2}.

246: While the quenching effects were successfully removed, 

247: we were left with a long chiral extrapolation:

248: the lightest up-down quark mass reached with the plain HMC algorithm

249: was about 67 MeV corresponding to $m_\pi/m_\rho\approx 0.6$.

250: 

251: The PACS-CS project, which is based on the PACS-CS (Parallel Array

252: Computer System for Computational Sciences) computer with a

253: peak speed of 14.3 Tflops developed at University of 

254: Tsukuba\cite{ukawa1,ukawa2,boku},

255: aims at calculations on the physical point to remove the ambiguity of 

256: chiral extrapolations. It employs the same quark and gauge actions as the

257: previous CP-PACS/JLQCD work, but uses a different simulation

258: algorithm: the up-down quark mass is reduced by using the

259: domain-decomposed HMC (DDHMC) algorithm 

260: with the replay trick\cite{luscher,kennedy}. At the

261: lightest up-down quark mass, which is about 3 MeV, several algorithmic

262: improvements are incorporated, including 

263: the mass-preconditioning\cite{massprec1,massprec2}, 

264: the chronological inverter\cite{chronological}, 

265: and the deflation technique\cite{deflation}.

266: For the strange quark part we improve the PHMC 

267: algorithm\cite{fastMC,Frezzotti:1997ym,phmc}

268: with the UV-filtering procedure\cite{Alexandrou:1999ii,ishikawa_lat06}.

269: 

270: So far our simulation points cover from 702 MeV to 156 MeV

271: for the pion mass.

272: While we still have to reduce the pion mass by 21 MeV to reach the 

273: real physical point, we consider that 

274: the findings so far already merits a detailed report.   

275: In this paper we focus on the following points: (i) several algorithmic 

276: improvements make possible a simulation with the up-down quark mass

277: as light as the physical value. (ii) The range of pion mass we have 

278: simulated is sufficiently light to deserve chiral

279: analyses with the chiral perturbation theory (ChPT), which

280: reveals that the strange quark mass is not small enough to be treated

281: by the SU(3) ChPT up to the next-to-leading order (NLO).

282: (iii) The SU(2) chiral analysis on the pion sector and the linear chiral

283: extrapolation for other hadron masses yield the hadron spectrum 

284: at the physical point which is compatible with the experimental values

285: at a few \% level of statistical errors.

286: 

287: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec:detail} 

288: we present the simulation details.  

289: Measurements of hadron masses, pseudoscalar meson decay constants 

290: and quark masses are described in Sec.~\ref{sec:measurement}.

291: In Sec.~\ref{sec:chiral} we make chiral analyses on the pseudoscalar 

292: meson sector using the SU(3) and SU(2) ChPTs. We present 

293: the values of low energy constants and discuss convergences of 

294: the SU(3) and SU(2) chiral expansions.

295: %We also present the values of low energy constants.

296: The results of hadron spectrum at the physical point are given

297: in Sec.~\ref{sec:physicalpt} together with 

298: the pseudoscalar meson decay constants and the quark masses.

299: %We also invwstigate the $\rho$-$\pi\pi$ mixing effects

300: %on our lattice in Sec.~\ref{sec:rhopipi}.

301: In Sec.~\ref{sec:potential} we show

302: the results for the static quark potential. 

303: Our conclusions are summarized in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusion}.

304: Appendices are devoted to describe the algorithmic details.

305: Preliminary results have been reported 

306: in Refs.~\cite{kura_lat07,ukita_lat07,kadoh_lat07}.

307: 

308: \section{Simulation details}

309: \label{sec:detail}

310: \subsection{Actions}

311: \label{subsec:action}

312: 

313: We employ the Iwasaki gauge action\cite{iwasaki} and 

314: the nonperturbatively $O(a)$-improved Wilson quark action

315: as in the previous CP-PACS/JLQCD work.

316: The former is composed of a plaquette and a $1\times 2$ rectangle loop:

317: \ben

318: S_{\rm g}=\frac{1}{g^2}\left\{ c_0\sum_{\rm plaquette}\tr U_{pl}

319: +c_1\sum_{\rm rectangle}\tr U_{rtg} \right\}

320: \label{eq:action_g}

321: \een

322: with $c_1=-0.331$ and $c_0=1-8c_1=3.648$.

323: The latter is expressed as

324: \begin{widetext}

325: \ben

326: S_{\rm quark}&=&\sum_{q={\rm  u,d,s}}\left[

327: \sum_n {\bar q}_n q_n 

328:     -\kappa_q \csw \sum_n \sum_{\mu,\nu}\frac{i}{2}

329:               {\bar q}_n\sigma_{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}(n)q_n

330: \right.\nn\\

331: &&\left.

332: -\kappa_q\sum_n

333: \sum_\mu \left\{{\bar q}_n(1-\gamma_\mu)U_{n,\mu} q_{n+{\hat \mu}}

334:                +{\bar q}_n(1+\gamma_\mu)U^{\dag}_{n-{\hat \mu},\mu} q_{n-{\hat \mu}}\right\}

335:  \right],

336: \label{eq:action_q}

337: \een

338: \end{widetext}

339: where we consider the case of a degenerate up and down quark mass

340: $\kappa_{\rm u}=\kappa_{\rm d}$.

341: The Euclidean gamma matrices are defined in terms of

342: the Minkowski matrices in the Bjorken-Drell convention:

343: $\gamma_j=-i\gamma_{BD}^j$ $(j=1,2,3)$, 

344: $\gamma_4=\gamma_{BD}^0$,

345: $\gamma_5=\gamma_{BD}^5$ and 

346: $\sigma_{\mu\nu}=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]$.

347: The field strength $F_{\mu\nu}$ in the clover term

348: is given by

349: \ben 

350: F_{\mu\nu}(n)&=&\frac{1}{4}\sum_{i=1}^{4}\frac{1}{2i}

351: \left(U_i(n)-U_i^\dagger(n)\right), \\

352: U_1(n)&=&U_{n,\mu}U_{n+{\hat \mu},\nu}

353:          U^\dagger_{n+{\hat \nu},\mu}U^\dagger_{n,\nu}, \\

354: U_2(n)&=&U_{n,\nu}U^\dagger_{n-{\hat \mu}+{\hat \nu},\mu}

355:          U^\dagger_{n-{\hat \mu},\nu}U_{n-{\hat \mu},\mu}, \\

356: U_3(n)&=&U^\dagger_{n-{\hat \mu},\mu}U^\dagger_{n-{\hat \mu}-{\hat \nu},\nu}

357:          U_{n-{\hat \mu}-{\hat \nu},\mu}U_{n-{\hat \nu},\nu}, \\

358: U_4(n)&=&U^\dagger_{n-{\hat \nu},\nu}U_{n-{\hat \nu},\mu}

359:          U_{n+{\hat \mu}-{\hat \nu},\nu}U^\dagger_{n,\mu}.

360: \een

361: The improvement coefficient $\csw$ for $O(a)$ improvement was 

362: determined nonperturbatively in Ref.~\cite{csw}.

363: 

364: \subsection{Simulation parameters}

365: \label{subsec:params}

366: 

367: 

368: Our simulations are carried out at $\beta=1.90$ on a $32^3\times 64$

369: lattice for which we use $\csw=1.715$~\cite{csw}. This $\beta$ value is one of the three in the previous

370: CP-PACS/JLQCD work, whereas the lattice size 

371: is enlarged from $20^3\times 40$  to investigate the baryon masses.

372: The lattice spacing is found to be 0.0907(14) fm 

373: whose determination is explained later.

374: Table~\ref{tab:param} lists the run parameters of our simulations. 

375: The six combinations of the hopping parameters 

376: $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})$ are chosen 

377: based on the previous CP-PACS/JLQCD results. 

378: The heaviest combination 

379: $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13700,0.13640)$ in this work 

380: corresponds to the lightest one in the previous CP-PACS/JLQCD simulations, 

381: which enable us to make a direct comparison of the two results with

382: different lattice sizes.

383: The physical point of the strange quark at $\beta=1.90$ was

384: estimated as $\kappa_{\rm s}=0.136412(50)$ 

385: in the CP-PACS/JLQCD work\cite{cppacs/jlqcd1, cppacs/jlqcd2}.

386: This is the reason why all our simulations 

387: are carried out with $\kappa_{\rm s}=0.13640$, 

388: the one exception being the run at 

389: $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13754,0.13660)$ 

390: to investigate the strange quark mass dependence. 

391: After more than 1000 MD time for thermalization

392: we calculate hadronic observables solving quark propagators at every

393: 10 trajectories for $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13770$

394: and 20 trajectories for $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$,

395: while we measure the plaquette expectation value at every trajectory.

396: 

397: \subsection{Algorithm}

398: \label{subsec:algorithm}

399: 

400: Our base algorithm for penetrating into the small mass region for a 

401: degenerate pair of up and down quarks is the DDHMC algorithm\cite{luscher}.

402: The effectiveness of this algorithm for reducing the quark mass 

403: was already shown in the $N_f=2$ case\cite{luscher,del06,del07}. 

404: We found that it works down to $\kappa_{\rm ud} = 0.13770$ 

405: (or $m_\pi\approx 300$~MeV) on our $32^3\times 64$ lattice.  

406: Moving closer to the physical point, however, we found it necessary to 

407: add further enhancements including mass preconditioning, which we call 

408: mass-preconditioned DDHMC (MPDDHMC).  This is the algorithm we applied 

409: at our lightest point at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$. 

410: 

411: The characteristic feature of the DDHMC algorithm is a geometric separation 

412: of the up-down quark determinant into the UV and the IR parts, which 

413: is implemented by domain-decomposing the full lattice into small blocks.

414: We choose $8^4$ for the block size, being less than (1~fm)$^4$ in

415: physical units and small enough to reside 

416: within a computing node of the PACS-CS computer.

417: The latter feature is computationally advantageous since the calculation 

418: of the UV part requires no communication between blocks so that 

419: the inter-node communications are sizably reduced.   

420: 

421: The UV/IR separation enables the application of multiple time scale 

422: integration schemes\cite{sexton}, which reduces the simulation cost 

423: substantially. In our simulation points we find that 

424: the relative magnitudes of the force terms are 

425: \ben   

426: ||F_{\rm g}||:||F_{\rm UV}||:||F_{\rm IR}|| \approx 16:4:1,

427: \label{eq:force_ddhmc}

428: \een

429: where we adopt the convention $||M||^2=-2{\rm tr}(M^2)$

430: for the norm of an element $M$ of the SU(3) Lie algebra, and 

431: $F_{\rm g}$ denotes the gauge part and $F_{\rm UV, IR}$ are for the UV

432: and the IR parts of the up-down quarks.

433: The associated step sizes for the forces are controlled by

434: three integers $N_{0,1,2}$ introduced by  

435: $\delta\tau_{\rm g}=\tau/N_0 N_1 N_2,\ \  \delta\tau_{\rm UV}=\tau/N_1

436: N_2,\ \  \delta\tau_{\rm IR}=\tau/N_2$ with $\tau$ the trajectory

437: length.

438: The integers $N_{0,1,2}$ should be chosen such that 

439: \begin{eqnarray}

440:  \delta\tau_{\rm g} ||F_{\rm g}|| \approx \delta\tau_{\rm UV} ||F_{\rm UV}|| \approx \delta\tau_{\rm IR} ||F_{\rm IR}||.

441: \end{eqnarray} 

442: The relative magnitudes between the forces in Eq.~(\ref{eq:force_ddhmc})

443: tell us that $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}$ may be chosen roughly 16 times as 

444: large as $\delta\tau_{\rm g}$ and 4 times that of $\delta\tau_{\rm UV}$,

445: which means that we need to calculate $F_{\rm IR}$ an order of magnitude 

446: less frequently in the molecular dynamics trajectories.

447: Since the calculation of  $F_{\rm IR}$ contains the quark matrix

448: inversion on the full lattice, which is the most computer 

449: time consuming part, 

450: this integration scheme saves the simulation cost remarkably.

451: 

452: The values for $N_{0,1,2}$ are listed in Table~\ref{tab:param}, where

453: $N_0$ and $N_1$ are fixed at 4 for all the hopping parameters, 

454: while the value of $N_2$ is adjusted taking account of acceptance rate 

455: and simulation stability. The threshold for the replay 

456: trick\cite{luscher,kennedy} 

457: for dealing with instabilities of molecular dynamics 

458: trajectories leading to large values of $dH$ is set to be $\Delta  H>2$.

459: 

460: For the strange quark, we employ the UV-filtered PHMC (UVPHMC) 

461: algorithm\cite{ishikawa_lat06}.

462: The UVPHMC action for the strange quark is obtained through

463: the UV-filtering\cite{Alexandrou:1999ii} applied after 

464: the even-odd site preconditioning for the quark matrix.

465: The domain-decomposition is not used.

466: %The action is properly combined to the DDHMC action and 

467: The polynomial approximation is corrected by the global Metropolis test

468: \cite{NoisyMetropolisMB}.

469: Since we find  $||F_{\rm s}||\approx ||F_{\rm IR}||$, 

470: the step size is chosen as $\delta\tau_{\rm s}=\delta\tau_{\rm IR}$.

471: The polynomial order for UVPHMC, which is denoted 

472: by $N_{\rm poly}$ in Table~\ref{tab:param},

473: is adjusted to yield high acceptance rate for the global Metropolis

474: test at the end of each trajectory.

475: 

476: The inversion of the Wilson-Dirac operator $D$ on the full lattice 

477: is carried out by the SAP (Schwarz alternating procedure) 

478: preconditioned GCR solver.  

479: The preconditioning is accelerated with the single-precision

480: arithmetic\cite{sap+gcr}. 

481: We employ the stopping condition $|Dx-b|/|b|<10^{-9}$ for the force

482: calculation and $10^{-14}$ for the Hamiltonian, which guarantees 

483: the reversibility of the molecular dynamics trajectories to a high

484: precision: $|\Delta U|<10^{-12}$ for the link variables and 

485: $|\Delta H|<10^{-8}$ for the Hamiltonian at 

486: $(\kappa_{\rm ud}, \kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13781,0.13640)$.

487: We describe the details of the DDHMC algorithm and the solver 

488: implementation used for $\kappa_{\mathrm{ud}}\leq 0.13770$ 

489: in Appendix~\ref{app:DDHMC}.

490: 

491: As we reduce the up-down quark mass, we observe a tendency that

492: the fluctuation of $||F_{\rm IR}||$ during the molecular dynamics 

493: trajectory increases, which results in 

494: a higher replay rate due to the appearance of trajectories with 

495: large $\Delta H$.

496: Since $\Delta  H$ is controlled by the product of

497: $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}$ and $||F_{\rm IR}||$, 

498: a possible solution to suppress the replay rate is to reduce 

499: $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}$. In this case, however, 

500: we find the acceptance becoming unnecessarily close to unity.

501: Another solution would be to tame the fluctuation of $||F_{\rm IR}||$, 

502: and we employ for this purpose the 

503: mass-preconditioner\cite{massprec1,massprec2} to the IR part 

504: of the pseudofermion action.  

505: The quark mass in the preconditioner is controlled by an additional

506: hopping parameter $\kappa_{\rm ud}^\prime=\rho\kappa_{\rm ud}$,

507: where $\rho$ should be less than unity so that calculating with the 

508: preconditioner is less costly than with the original IR part. 

509: The IR force $F_{\rm IR}$ is split into $F_{\rm IR}^\prime$ 

510: and ${\tilde F}_{\rm IR}$. The former is derived from

511: the preconditioner and the latter from the preconditioned action. 

512: 

513: 

514: We employ the mass-preconditioned DDHMC (MPDDHMC) algorithm

515: for the run at the lightest up-down quark mass of

516: $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$.

517: With our choice of $\rho=0.9995$ 

518: the relative magnitudes of the force terms become

519: \ben   

520: ||F_{\rm g}||:||F_{\rm UV}||:||F_{\rm IR}^\prime||:||{\tilde F}_{\rm IR}|| \approx 16:4:1:1/7.

521: \label{eq:force_mpddhmc}

522: \een

523: According to this result

524: we choose $(N_0,N_1,N_2,N_3)=(4,4,4,6)$ for the associated step sizes.

525: Here the choice of $N_2=4$ does not follow the criterion 

526: $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}^\prime ||F_{\rm IR}^\prime|| \approx 

527: \delta{\tilde \tau}_{\rm IR} ||{\tilde F}_{\rm IR}||$.

528: This is because we take account of the fluctuations of 

529: $||{\tilde F}_{\rm IR}||$.

530: The replay trick is not implemented in the runs at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$.

531: For the step size for the strange quark in the UVPHMC algorithm 

532: we choose $\delta\tau_{\rm s}=\delta\tau_{\rm IR}^\prime$

533: as we observe $||F_{\rm s}||\approx ||F_{\rm IR}^\prime||$.

534: 

535: The inversion of $D$ during the molecular dynamics steps 

536: is also improved at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ in three ways.  

537: (i) We employ the chronological guess using the last 16 solutions 

538: to construct the initial solution vector of $D^{-1}$ 

539: on the full lattice\cite{chronological}.

540: In order to assure the reversibility we apply a stringent 

541: stopping condition $|Dx-b|/|b|<10^{-14}$ to the 

542: force calculation.

543: (ii) The inversion algorithm is replaced by a nested BiCGStab solver,

544: which consists of an inner solver

545: accelerated with single precision arithmetic and

546: with an automatic tolerance control ranging from $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-6}$,

547: and an outer solver with a stringent tolerance of $10^{-14}$ operated

548: with the double precision. The approximate solution obtained by the

549: inner solver works as a preconditioner for the outer solver.

550: (iii) We implement the deflation technique 

551: to make the solver robust against possible small eigenvalues 

552: allowed in the Wilson-type quark action.

553: Once the inner BiCGStab solver becomes stagnant during the inversion of $D$, 

554: it is automatically replaced by the GCRO-DR (Generalized Conjugate

555: Residual with implicit inner Orthogonalization and Deflated Restarting)

556: algorithm\cite{deflation}.

557: In our experience the GCRO-DR algorithm is important for calculating 

558: $D^{-1}$ but does not save the simulation time at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$.

559: More details of the MPDDHMC algorithm and the improvements are given 

560: in Appendix~\ref{app:MPDDHMC}.

561: 

562: \subsection{Implementation on the PACS-CS computer}

563: 

564: All of the simulations reported in this article have been carried out 

565: on the PACS-CS parallel computer\cite{boku}.  

566: PACS-CS consists of 2560 nodes, each node equipped with a 

567: 2.8GHz Intel Xeon single-core processor ({\it i.e.,} 5.6Gflops of peak 

568: speed) with 2 GBytes of main memory.  The nodes are arranged into a 

569: $16\times 16\times 10$ array and connected by a 3-dimensional 

570: hypercrossbar network made of a dual Gigabit Ethernet in each direction.  

571: The network bandwidth is 750 MBytes/sec for each node. 

572: 

573: The programming language is mainly Fortran 90 with Intel Fortran compiler. 

574: To further enhance the performance we used Intel C++ compiler

575: for the single precision hopping matrix multiplication routines which are

576: the most time consuming parts.

577: The Intel compiler enables us to use the Intel Streaming SIMD 

578: extensions 2 and 3 intrinsics directly without writing assembler language.

579: 

580: We employ a 256 node partition of PACS-CS to execute our $32^3\times 64$ runs. 

581: The sustained performance including communication overhead with our 

582: DDHMC code turns out to be 18\%.  

583: The computer time needed for one MD unit is listed in Table~\ref{tab:param}.  

584:   

585: \subsection{Efficiency of DDHMC algorithms}

586: \label{subsec:efficiency}

587: 

588: The efficiency of the DDHMC algorithm may be clarified in comparison 

589: with that of the HMC algorithm.

590: For $N_f=2$ QCD simulations with the Wilson-clover quark action,  

591: an empirical cost formula suggested for the HMC algorithm

592: based on the CP-PACS and JLQCD $N_f=2$ runs  was as follows~\cite{berlinwall}:

593: \begin{widetext}

594: \ben

595: {\rm cost[Tflops\cdot years]}&=&C\left[\frac{\#{\rm conf}}{1000}\right]\cdot

596: \left[\frac{0.6}{m_\pi/m_\rho}\right]^6\cdot

597: \left[\frac{L}{3{\rm ~fm}}\right]^5\cdot

598: \left[\frac{0.1{\rm ~fm}}{a}\right]^7

599: \label{eq:cost_hmc}

600: \een

601: \end{widetext}

602: with $C\approx 2.8$.

603: A strong quark mass dependence in the above formula 

604: $1/(m_\pi/m_\rho)^6\sim 1/m_{\rm ud}^3$ stems from three factors:

605: (i) the number of iterations for the quark matrix inversion increases 

606: as the condition number which is proportional to $1/m_{\rm ud}$, 

607: (ii)to keep the acceptance rate constant we should take

608: $\delta\tau\propto m_{\rm ud}$ for the step size in

609: the molecular dynamics trajectories, and (iii)

610: the autocorrelation time of the HMC evolution was consistent with 

611: an $1/m_{\rm ud}$ dependence in the CP-PACS runs\cite{cppacs_nf2}.

612: 

613: To estimate the computational cost for

614: $N_f=2+1$ QCD simulations with the HMC algorithm,

615: we assume that the strange quark contribution is given by half of

616: Eq.~(\ref{eq:cost_hmc}) at $m_\pi/m_\rho=0.67$ which

617: is a phenomenologically estimated ratio of the

618: strange pseudoscalar meson ``$m_{\eta_{\rm ss}}$'' and $m_\phi$:

619: \ben

620: \frac{m_{\eta_{\rm

621: ss}}}{m_\phi}=\frac{\sqrt{2m_K^2-m_\pi^2}}{m_\phi}\approx 0.67.\nn

622: \een

623: Since the strange quark is relatively heavy, its computational

624: cost occupies only a small fraction as the up-down quark mass decreases.

625: In Fig.~\ref{fig:berlinwall} we draw the cost formula

626: for the $N_f=2+1$ case as a function of $m_\pi/m_\rho$,

627: where we take \#conf=100, $a$=0.1~fm and $L=3$~fm in Eq.~(\ref{eq:cost_hmc})

628: as a representative case.

629: We observe a steep increase of the computational cost below

630: $m_\pi/m_\rho\simeq 0.5$.

631: At the physical point the cost expected from Eq.~(\ref{eq:cost_hmc}) 

632: would be $O(100)$ Tflops$\cdot$years.

633: 

634: 

635: Let us now see the situation with the DDHMC algorithm.

636: The blue open symbol in Fig.~\ref{fig:berlinwall} denotes the measured cost at

637: $(\kappa_{\rm ud}, \kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13770,0.13640)$, 

638: which is the lightest point implemented with the DDHMC algorithm.

639: Here we assume that we need 100 MD time separation between 

640: independent configurations.

641: We observe a remarkable reduction in the cost by a factor $20-30$ 

642: in magnitude.

643: The majority of this reduction arises from the multiple time scale

644: integration scheme and the GCR solver

645: accelerated by the SAP preconditioning

646: with the single-precision arithmetic.

647: Roughly speaking, the improvement factor is $O(10)$ for the former

648: and $3-4$ for the latter.

649: The cost of the MPDDHMC algorithm at 

650: $(\kappa_{\rm ud}, \kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13781,0.13640)$

651: is plotted by the blue closed symbol in Fig.~\ref{fig:berlinwall}. 

652: In this case, the reduction is mainly owing to the multiple time scale

653: integration scheme armored with the mass-preconditioning and 

654: the chronological inverter for $F_{\rm IR}^\prime$ and ${\tilde F}_{\rm IR}$.

655: As we already noted, the GCRO-DR solver does not accelerate the inversion

656: albeit it renders the solver robust against the small eigenvalues

657: of the Wilson-Dirac operator.

658: 

659: %Note that the quark mass dependence is also tamed:

660: Since we find in Table~\ref{tab:param} 

661: that $\tau_{\rm int}[P]$ is roughly independent

662: of the up-down quark mass employed in the DDHMC algorithm,

663: the cost is expected to be proportional to $1/m_{\rm ud}^2$.

664: Assuming this quark mass dependence for the MPDDHMC algorithm,

665: we find that simulations at the physical point is feasible, 

666: at least for $L\approx 3$~fm lattices, with 

667: $O(10)$ Tflops computers, which are already available at present.

668: 

669: 

670: \subsection{Autocorrelations and statistical error analysis}

671: \label{subsec:autoc}

672: 

673: The autocorrelation function $\Gamma(\tau)$ of a time series of 

674: an observable ${\cal O}$ in the course of a numerical simulation is

675: given by

676: \ben

677: \Gamma(\tau)=\la {\cal O}(\tau_0){\cal O}(\tau_0+\tau)\ra-\la{\cal O}(\tau_0)\ra^2

678: \een

679: In Fig.~\ref{fig:PLQ} we show the plaquette history and the normalized

680: autocorrelation function $\rho(\tau)=\Gamma(\tau)/\Gamma(0)$ at

681: $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13727$ as an example. 

682: %Note that they are obtained 

683: %in a single run as well as the case of $\kappa_{\rm ud}$=0.13700.

684: The integrated autocorrelation time

685: is estimated as $\tau_{\rm int}[P]=20.9(10.2)$

686: following the definition in Ref.~\cite{luscher}

687: \ben

688: \tau_{\rm int}(\tau)=\frac{1}{2}

689: +\sum_{0< \tau \le W} \rho(\tau),

690: \een

691: where the summation window $W$ is set to the first time lag $\tau$ such that

692: $\rho(\tau)$ becomes consistent with zero within the error bar.

693: In this case we find $W=119.5$.

694: The choice of $W$ is not critical for estimate of

695: $\tau_{\rm int}$ in spite of the long tail observed in Fig.~\ref{fig:PLQ}.

696: Extending the summation window, we find

697: that $\tau_{\rm int}[P]$ saturates at $\tau_{\rm int}[P]\approx 25$

698: beyond $W=200$, which is

699: within the error bar of the original estimate.

700: 

701: Our simulations at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13700$ and $0.13727$ are fast enough 

702: to be executed by a single long run of 2000 MD units. 

703: The simulations at $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$ become increasingly 

704: CPU time consuming so that we had to execute multiple runs in parallel .   

705: The data obtained from different runs are combined into 

706: a single extended series, for which we define the above autocorrelation

707: function $\Gamma(\tau)$ as if it were a single run.  

708: The results for $\tau_{\rm int}[P]$ are listed in 

709: Table~\ref{tab:param}.

710: Although we hardly observe any systematic quark mass dependence for

711: the integrated autocorrelation time,

712: the statistics may not be

713: sufficiently large to derive a definite conclusion.

714:   

715: In the physics analysis we estimate the statistical errors with the

716: jackknife method in order to take account of the autocorrelation.

717: For the simulations at $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$ we apply the

718: jackknife analysis after combining the different runs into a single

719: series. The bin size dependence of the statistical error is investigated

720: for each physical observable. 

721: %In order to examine the possibility that 

722: %the auto-correlation estimate is artificially cut off by the length 

723: %of each run, 

724: For a cross-check

725: we also carry out the bootstrap error estimation with 1000 

726: samples.  In all cases we find the two estimates agree for the magnitude of 

727: errors within 10\%.

728: We follow the procedure given in Appendix  B of Ref.~\cite{cppacs_nf2}

729: in estimating the errors for the chiral fit parameters. 

730: 

731: 

732: \section{Measurements of hadronic observables}

733: \label{sec:measurement}

734: 

735: 

736: \subsection{Hadron masses, quark masses and decay constants}

737: \label{subsec:hmass}

738: 

739: We measure the meson and baryon correlators at the unitary

740: points where the valence quark masses are equal to the sea quark masses.

741: For the meson operators we employ

742: \ben

743: M_\Gamma^{fg}(x)={\bar q}_f(x)\Gamma q_g(x),

744: \een

745: where $f$ and $g$ denote quark flavors and $\Gamma$ are 16

746: Dirac matrices $\Gamma={\rm I}$, $\gamma_5$, $\gamma_\mu$, 

747: $i\gamma_\mu\gamma_5$ and  $i[\gamma_\mu,\gamma_\nu]/2$ 

748: $(\mu,\nu=1,2,3,4)$.

749: The octet baryon operators are given by 

750: \ben

751: {\cal O}^{fgh}_\alpha(x)=\epsilon^{abc}((q_f^a(x))^T C\gamma_5 q_g^b(x))

752: q_{h\alpha}^c(x),

753: \een 

754: where $a,b,c$ are color indices, $C=\gamma_4\gamma_2$ is the 

755: charge conjugation matrix and $\alpha=1,2$ labels the $z$-component

756: of the spin 1/2.

757: The $\Sigma$- and $\Lambda$-like octet baryons are distinguished by

758: the flavor structures:

759: \ben

760: \Sigma{\rm -like}\;\; &:& \;\; -\frac{{\cal O}^{[fh]g}+{\cal O}^{[gh]f}}{\sqrt{2}},\\

761: \Lambda{\rm -like}\;\; &:& \;\; \frac{{\cal O}^{[fh]g}-{\cal O}^{[gh]f}-2{\cal O}^{[fg]h}}

762: {\sqrt{6}},

763: \een

764: where $O^{[fg]h}={\cal O}^{fgh}-{\cal O}^{gfh}$.

765: We define the decuplet baryon operators for the four $z$-components of the

766: spin 3/2 as

767: \ben

768: D^{fgh}_{3/2}(x)&=&\epsilon^{abc}((q_f^a(x))^T C\Gamma_+

769: q_g^b(x))q_{h1}^c(x),\\

770: D^{fgh}_{1/2}(x)&=&

771: \epsilon^{abc}[((q_f^a(x))^T C\Gamma_0q_g^b(x))q_{h1}^c(x)\nn\\

772: &&-((q_f^a(x))^T C\Gamma_+q_g^b(x))q_{h2}^c(x)]/3,\\

773: D^{fgh}_{-1/2}(x)&=&

774: \epsilon^{abc}[((q_f^a(x))^T C\Gamma_0q_g^b(x))q_{h2}^c(x)\nn\\

775: &&-((q_f^a(x))^T C\Gamma_-q_g^b(x))q_{h1}^c(x)]/3,\\

776: D^{fgh}_{-3/2}(x)&=&\epsilon^{abc}((q_f^a(x))^T C\Gamma_-

777: q_g^b(x))q_{h2}^c(x),

778: \een

779: where $\Gamma_{\pm}=(\gamma_1\mp\gamma_2)/2$, $\Gamma_0=\gamma_3$ and

780: the flavor structures should be symmetrized.

781: 

782: We calculate the meson and the baryon correlators

783: with point and smeared sources and a local sink.

784: For the smeared source we employ an exponential smearing function 

785: $\Psi(|{\vec x}|)=A_q\exp(-B_q|{\vec x}|)$ $(q={\rm ud,s})$ with

786: $\Psi(0)=1$ for the ud and s quark propagators. The

787: parameters $A_q$ and $B_q$ are adjusted 

788: from a couple of configurations after the beginning of the production run

789: such that the pseudoscalar meson effective masses

790: reach a plateau as soon as possible. 

791: %when averaged over the meson particle types. 

792: Their values are given in Table~\ref{tab:param_smear}.

793: The point and smeared sources allow the hadron propagators 

794: with nonzero spatial momentum, and we calculate them for 

795: ${\vec p}=(0,0,0),(\pi/16,0,0),(0,\pi/16,0),(0,0,\pi/16)$.

796: 

797: 

798: In order to increase the statistics we calculate the hadron correlators

799: with four source points at $(x_0,y_0,z_0,t_0)$=$(17,17,17,1)$, $(1,1,1,9)$,

800: $(25,25,25,17)$, and $(9,9,9,25)$ for $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$.

801: They are averaged on each configuration before the jackknife analysis. 

802: This procedure reduces the statistical errors 

803: by typically $20-40$\% for the vector meson and the baryon masses

804: and  less than 20\% for the pseudoscalar meson masses 

805: compared to a single source point.

806: For further enhancement of the signal we average zero momentum 

807: hadron propagators over possible spin states on each configuration: 

808: three polarization states for the vector meson and two (four) 

809: spin states for the octet (decuplet) baryons. 

810:  

811: 

812: We extract the meson and the baryon masses from the hadron propagators

813: with the point sink and the smeared source, where all the valence quark

814: propagators in the mesons and the baryons have the smeared sources.

815: Figures~\ref{fig:m_eff_kud54}$-$\ref{fig:m_eff_kud81} show effective

816: mass plots for the meson and the baryon propagators with the smeared

817: source for $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$. We observe that the excited

818: state contributions are effectively suppressed and good plateaus start  

819: at small values of $t$. 

820: 

821: The hadron masses are extracted by uncorrelated $\chi^2$ fits 

822: to the propagators without

823: taking account of correlations between different time slices,

824: since we encounter instabilities for correlated fits using covariance matrix.

825: We assume a single hyperbolic cosine function for the mesons and a single

826: exponential form for the baryons. 

827: The lower end of the fit range $t_{\rm min}$ is determined by

828: investigating stability of the fitted mass. 

829: On the other hand, the choice of $t_{\rm max}$ 

830: gives little influence on the fit results as far as

831: the effective mass exhibits a plateau and the signal is not lost in the noise. 

832: We employ the same fit range $[t_{\rm min},t_{\rm max}]$ for the same 

833: particle type: $[13,30]$ for pseudoscalar mesons, $[10,20]$ for vector

834: mesons, $[10,20]$ for octet baryons and $[8,20]$ for decuplet baryons. 

835: These fit ranges are independent of the quark masses.

836: Resulting hadron masses are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:hmass}. 

837: 

838: Statistical errors are estimated with the jackknife

839: procedure. In Fig.~\ref{fig:binerr_pi} we show the bin size dependence of

840: the error for $m_\pi$ and $m_{\eta_{\rm ss}}$.  

841: We observe that the magnitude of error 

842: reaches a plateau after 100$-$200 MD time depending on the quark

843: mass. Since similar binsize dependences are found for 

844: other particle types,

845: we employ a binsize of 250 MD time for the jackknife analysis 

846: at $0.13770\ge \kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$.  

847: At our lightest point $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ with the statistics of 

848: 990 MD units, we had to reduce the bin size to 110 MD units.

849: 

850: We define the bare quark mass based on the axial vector

851: Ward-Takahashi identity (AWI) by the ratio of matrix elements

852: of the pseudoscalar density $P$ and the fourth component of the

853: axial vector current $A_4$: 

854: \ben

855: {\bar m}^{\rm AWI}_f+ {\bar m}^{\rm AWI}_g=\frac{\langle 0 |\nabla_4

856:   A_4^{\rm imp} |{\rm PS} \rangle}{\langle 0| P | PS\rangle},

857: \een

858: where $|{\rm PS}\rangle$ denotes the pseudoscalar meson state

859: at rest and $f$ and $g$ $(f,g={\rm ud},s)$ label the flavors 

860: of the valence quarks.

861: We employ the nonperturbatively $O(a)$-improved 

862: axial vector current $A_4^{\rm imp}=A_4+c_A{\bar \nabla}_4 P$ 

863: with ${\bar \nabla}_4$ the symmetric lattice derivative, and 

864: $c_A=-0.03876106$ as determined in Ref.~\cite{ca}.

865: In practice the AWI quark mass is determined by 

866: \ben

867: {\bar m}^{\rm AWI}_f+{\bar m}^{\rm AWI}_g&=&\frac{m_{\rm PS}}{2}

868: \left\vert \frac{C_A^s}{C_P^s}\right\vert,

869: \een

870: where $m_{\rm PS}$, $C_A^s$ and $C_P^s$ are obtained by

871: applying a simultaneous $\chi^2$ fit to 

872: \ben

873: \langle A_4^{\rm imp}(t) P^s(0)\rangle=2C_A^s

874: \frac{\sinh(-m_{\rm PS}(t-T/2))}{\exp(m_{\rm PS}T/2)}

875: \label{eq:a4p_s}

876: \een

877: with a smeared source and

878: \ben

879: \langle P(t)P^s(0)\rangle=2C_P^s

880: \frac{\cosh(-m_{\rm PS}(t-T/2))}{\exp(m_{\rm PS}T/2)}

881: \label{eq:pp_s}

882: \een

883: with a smeared source, where $T$ denotes the temporal extent of the lattice.

884: We employ the fit range of $[t_{\rm min},t_{\rm max}]=[13,25]$ 

885: for the former and $[13,30]$ for the latter at all the

886: hopping parameters.

887: The renormalized quark mass in the continuum ${\overline{\rm MS}}$

888: scheme is defined as 

889: \ben

890: m^{\overline{\rm MS}}_f&=&\frac{Z_A}{Z_P}m^{\rm AWI}_f,

891: \een

892: with

893: \ben

894: m^{\rm AWI}_f&=&\frac{\left(1+b_A

895:   \frac{m_f^{\rm VWI}}{u_0}\right)}

896: {\left(1+b_P \frac{m_f^{\rm VWI}}{u_0} \right)}{\bar m}^{\rm AWI}_f.

897: \een

898: The renormalization factors

899: $Z_{A,P}$ and the improvement coefficients $b_{A,P}$ are 

900: perturbatively evaluated up to one-loop level\cite{z_pt,z_imp_pt,aokietal}

901: with the tadpole improvement. The VWI quark  masses in the $ma$

902: corrections are perturbatively obtained from the AWI quark masses:

903: \ben

904: \frac{m_f^{\rm VWI}}{u_0} = \frac{Z_A}{Z_P Z_m}{\bar m}^{\rm AWI}_f.

905: \label{eq:mq_vwi}

906: \een

907: In Table~\ref{tab:qmass} we list

908: the values of $m^{\overline{\rm MS}}_{\rm ud}$ and 

909: $m^{\overline{\rm MS}}_{\rm s}$ renormalized at the scale of $1/a$, whose 

910: statistical errors are provided by the jackknife analysis with 

911: the bin size chosen as in the hadron mass measurements.

912: 

913: The bare pseudoscalar meson decay constant on the lattice 

914: is defined by

915: \ben

916: \left\vert\langle 0|A_4^{\rm imp}|{\rm PS}\rangle\right\vert 

917: =f^{\rm bare}_{\rm PS}m_{\rm PS}.

918: \een

919: with $|{\rm PS}\rangle$ the pseudoscalar meson state at rest 

920: consisting of $f$ and $g$ valence quarks.

921: We evaluate $f^{\rm bare}_{\rm PS}$ from the formula

922: \ben

923: f^{\rm bare}_{\rm PS}&=&\left\vert\frac{C_A^s}{C_P^s}\right\vert

924: \sqrt{\frac{2\left\vert C_P^l\right\vert}{m_{\rm PS}}},

925: \een

926: where we extract $m_{\rm PS}$,  $C_A^s$ , $C_{P}^s$ and $C_P^l$

927: from a simultaneous fit of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:a4p_s}), (\ref{eq:pp_s}) and

928: \ben

929: \langle P(t)P^l(0)\rangle=2C_P^l

930: \frac{\cosh(-m_{\rm PS}(t-T/2))}{\exp(m_{\rm PS}T/2)}

931: \label{eq:pp_l}

932: \een

933: with a local source.

934: The fit ranges are $[13,25]$, $[13,30]$ and $[15,25]$, respectively,

935: at all the hopping parameters.

936: The bare decay constant $f^{\rm bare}_{\rm PS}$ is renormalized 

937: perturbatively with

938: \ben

939: f_{\rm PS}&=&u_0 Z_A \left(1+b_A\frac{m^{\rm VWI}_f+m^{\rm VWI}_g}{2u_0}\right)

940: f^{\rm bare}_{\rm PS},

941: \een

942: where $m^{\rm VWI}_f$ is estimated by Eq.~(\ref{eq:mq_vwi}). 

943: Table~\ref{tab:qmass} summarizes

944: the results for $f_{\rm PS}$ with the statistical errors

945: evaluated by the jackknife analysis with the bin size chosen as in the 

946: hadron mass measurements.

947: 

948: 

949: \subsection{Comparison with the previous CP-PACS/JLQCD results}

950: \label{subsec:comparison}

951: 

952: A comparison between the present PACS-CS results 

953: and those with the previous CP-PACS/JLQCD work\cite{cppacs/jlqcd1, cppacs/jlqcd2}

954: obtained with the same gauge and quark actions

955: is possible at $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13700,0.13640)$,

956: except that the lattice sizes are different: $32^3\times 64$ for the former

957: and $20^3\times 40$ for the latter.

958: In Table~\ref{tab:comp} we list the PACS-CS and the CP-PACS/JLQCD

959: results for the hadron masses at 

960: $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13700,0.13640)$.

961: While the results for $m_\pi$ are consistent within the errors,

962: we find a $1-2$\% deviation for $m_\rho$ and $m_N$. 

963: This is pictorially confirmed in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmpr_effm}

964: which shows the effective masses for the $\pi$ meson and the nucleon.

965: The pion effective masses  are almost degenerate from  $t=8$ to 17, while   

966: a slight discrepancy is observed for the nucleon results. 

967: The $\rho$ and  nucleon masses may be suffering  from 

968: finite size effects.

969: 

970: \section{Chiral analysis on pseudoscalar meson masses and decay constants}

971: \label{sec:chiral}

972: 

973: The analysis of chiral behavior of pseudoscalar meson masses and decay 

974: constants occupy an important place in lattice QCD.  

975: Theoretically the main points to examine are 

976: the presence of chiral logarithms as predicted 

977: by ChPT and the convergence of the ChPT series itself. 

978: The viability of ChPT is 

979: relevant also for studies of finite-size effects.  The low energy constants 

980: are important from phenomenological points of view.  And finally, the chiral 

981: analysis is required to pin down the physical point in the parameter space of the 

982: simulations. We begin with a discussion of a subtle point in the chiral analysis

983: when Wilson-clover quark action with implicit chiral symmetry breaking is employed. 

984: 

985: 

986: \subsection{Chiral perturbation theory for $O(a)$-improved Wilson-type 

987: quark action }

988: 

989: Our simulations are carried out with a non-perturbatively $O(a)$-improved Wilson 

990: quark action.  At present we correct $O(ma)$ terms in the AWI quark masses 

991: and decay constants by one-loop perturbation theory.  These corrections 

992: are expected to be very small in magnitude, and hence 

993: leading scaling violations in 

994: meson masses and decay constants from our simulations can be 

995: taken as $O(a^2)$.  

996: In this case, the NLO formula of Wilson chiral perturbation theory 

997: for the SU(3) flavor case\cite{wchpt},  

998: which incorporates the leading contributions of the

999: implicit chiral symmetry breaking effects of the Wilson-type quarks, 

1000: are given by

1001: \begin{widetext}

1002: \ben

1003: \frac{m_{\pi}^2}{2 m_{\rm ud}}&=& B_0 \left\{

1004: 1+\mu_\pi-\frac{1}{3}\mu_\eta 

1005: +\frac{2B_0}{f_0^2} \left(

1006: 16 m_{\rm ud}  (2L_{8}-L_5) 

1007: +16 (2 m_{\rm ud} +m_{\rm s}) (2L_{6}-L_4)  

1008: \right) -\frac{2H^{\prime\prime}}{f_0^2}\right\}, 

1009: \label{eq:wchpt_mpi}

1010: \\

1011: \frac{m_K^2}{(m_{\rm ud} +m_{\rm s})}&=&B_0 \left\{

1012: 1+\frac{2}{3}\mu_\eta

1013: +\frac{2B_0}{f_0^2}\left(

1014: 8(m_{\rm ud} + m_{\rm s}) (2L_{8}-L_5)

1015: +16(2 m_{\rm ud}  +m_{\rm s}) (2L_{6}-L_4) 

1016: \right) -\frac{2H^{\prime\prime}}{f_0^2}\right\}, 

1017: \label{eq:wchpt_mk}

1018: \\

1019: f_\pi &=&f_0\left\{

1020: 1-2\mu_\pi-\mu_K

1021: + \frac{2B_0}{f_0^2} \left (

1022: 8 m_{\rm ud} L_5+8(2 m_{\rm ud} +m_{\rm s})L_4

1023: \right) -\frac{2H^{\prime}}{f_0^2}\right\}, 

1024: \label{eq:wchpt_fpi}

1025: \\

1026: f_K &=&f_0\left\{

1027: 1-\frac{3}{4}\mu_\pi-\frac{3}{2}\mu_K-\frac{3}{4}\mu_\eta

1028: +\frac{2B_0}{f_0^2}\left(4(m_{\rm ud} + m_{\rm s}) L_5+8(2 m_{\rm ud} + m_{\rm s})L_4 

1029: \right) -\frac{2H^{\prime}}{f_0^2}\right\}, 

1030: \label{eq:wchpt_fk}

1031: \een

1032: \end{widetext}

1033: where the quark masses are defined by the axial-vector Ward-Takahashi

1034: identities: $m_{\rm ud}=m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$ and 

1035: $m_{\rm s}=m_{\rm s}^{\rm AWI}$. 

1036: $L_{4,5,6,8}$ are the low energy constants and 

1037: $\mu_{\rm PS}$ is the chiral logarithm defined by 

1038: \ben

1039: \mu_{\rm PS}=\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\frac{{\tilde m}_{\rm PS}^2}{f_0^2}

1040: \ln\left(\frac{{\tilde m}_{\rm PS}^2}{\mu^2}\right),

1041: \label{eq:chlog}

1042: \een

1043: where 

1044: \ben

1045: {\tilde m}_\pi^2 &=& 2 {m_{\rm ud}}B_0,\\

1046: {\tilde m}_K^2 &=& ({m_{\rm ud}} +m_{\rm s})B_0,\\

1047: {\tilde m}_\eta^2 &=& \frac{2}{3}({m_{\rm ud}} +2 m_{\rm s})B_0

1048: \een

1049: with $\mu$ the renormalization scale.

1050: 

1051: The two additional parameters $H^{\prime\prime}$ and $H^\prime$ are associated with

1052: the $O(a^2)$ contributions distinguishing the Wilson ChPT 

1053: from that in the continuum.

1054: Since these parameters are independent of the quark

1055: masses, their contributions can be absorbed into $B_0$ and

1056: $f_0$ by the following redefinitions:

1057: \ben

1058: B_0^\prime=B_0\left(1-\frac{2H^{\prime\prime}}{f_0^2}\right),\\

1059: f_0^\prime=f_0\left(1-\frac{2H^{\prime}}{f_0^2}\right),

1060: \een

1061: Indeed re-expansion of the terms in the curly brackets of 

1062: (\ref{eq:wchpt_mpi}) to (\ref{eq:wchpt_fk}) gives rise only to  

1063: terms of form $O(m_q\cdot a^2)$ and $O(m_q\ln m_q\cdot a^2)$, which are NNLO in

1064: the order counting of WChPT analysis and hence can be ignored. 

1065: Thus, up to NLO, WChPT formula are equivalent to the continuum form. 

1066: Note that the expressions in terms of the VWI

1067: quark masses take different forms

1068: and cannot be reduced to those of the continuum ChPT.

1069: Hereafter we concentrate on the continuum ChPT.

1070: 

1071: \subsection{SU(3) chiral perturbation theory}

1072: 

1073: The SU(3) ChPT formula in the continuum up to NLO\cite{chpt_nf3} is given by

1074: \begin{widetext}

1075: \ben

1076: \frac{m_{\pi}^2}{2 m_{\rm ud}}&=& B_0 \left\{

1077: 1+\mu_\pi-\frac{1}{3}\mu_\eta 

1078: +\frac{2B_0}{f_0^2} \left(

1079: 16 m_{\rm ud}  (2L_{8}-L_5) 

1080: +16 (2 m_{\rm ud} +m_{\rm s}) (2L_{6}-L_4)  

1081: \right) \right\}, 

1082: \label{eq:chpt_mpi}

1083: \\

1084: \frac{m_K^2}{(m_{\rm ud} +m_{\rm s})}&=&B_0 \left\{

1085: 1+\frac{2}{3}\mu_\eta

1086: +\frac{2B_0}{f_0^2}\left(

1087: 8(m_{\rm ud}+m_{\rm s}) (2L_{8}-L_5)

1088: +16(2 m_{\rm ud}  +m_{\rm s}) (2L_{6}-L_4) 

1089:  \right)\right\}, 

1090: \label{eq:chpt_mk}

1091: \\

1092: f_\pi &=&f_0\left\{

1093: 1-2\mu_\pi-\mu_K

1094: + \frac{2B_0}{f_0^2} \left (

1095: 8 m_{\rm ud} L_5+8(2 m_{\rm ud} +m_{\rm s})L_4

1096: \right)\right\}, 

1097: \label{eq:chpt_fpi}

1098: \\

1099: f_K &=&f_0\left\{

1100: 1-\frac{3}{4}\mu_\pi-\frac{3}{2}\mu_K-\frac{3}{4}\mu_\eta

1101: +\frac{2B_0}{f_0^2}\left(4(m_{\rm ud}+m_{\rm s}) L_5+8(2 m_{\rm ud}+ m_{\rm s})L_4 

1102: \right)\right\}, 

1103: \label{eq:chpt_fk}

1104: \een

1105: \end{widetext}

1106: There are six unknown low energy constants $B_0,f_0,L_{4,5,6,8}$ 

1107: in the expressions above.

1108: $L_{4,5,6,8}$ are scale-dependent so as to 

1109: cancel that of the chiral logarithm given by (\ref{eq:chlog}). 

1110: We can determine these parameters                                  

1111: by applying a simultaneous fit to $m_\pi^2/(2 m_{\rm ud})$, 

1112: $m_K^2/(m_{\rm ud} +m_{\rm s})$, $f_\pi$ and $f_K$.

1113: 

1114: 

1115: In order to provide an overview of our data we plot in Fig.~\ref{fig:cmp_chlog}

1116: a comparison of the PACS-CS (red symbols) and the CP-PACS/JLQCD 

1117: results (black symbols) for $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$ and $f_K/f_\pi$ 

1118: as a function of $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$.  

1119: The two data sets show a smooth connection at

1120: $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13700$ ($m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}=0.028$). 

1121: More important is the fact that an almost linear quark mass dependence

1122: of the CP-PACS/JLQCD results in heavier quark mass region

1123: changes into a convex behavior,

1124: both for $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$ and $f_K/f_\pi$, 

1125: as $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$ is diminished in the PACS-CS results. 

1126: This is a characteristic feature expected from 

1127: the ChPT prediction in the small quark mass region

1128: due to the chiral logarithm.

1129: This curvature drives up the ratio $f_K/f_\pi$ toward the 

1130: experimental value as the physical point is approached.

1131: 

1132: 

1133: Having confirmed signals for the presence of the chiral logarithm, 

1134: we apply the SU(3) ChPT formulae (\ref{eq:chpt_mpi})$-$(\ref{eq:chpt_fk})

1135: to our results.  We choose the four simulation points at 

1136: $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$. In Fig.~\ref{fig:cmp_chlog} these four 

1137: points lie to the left and around the turning point of the curvature.  

1138: They also correspond to the region where the $\rho$ meson 

1139: mass satisfies the condition $m_\rho > 2m_\pi$, and hence lie to the left 

1140: of the threshold singularity in the complex energy plane 

1141: for the $\rho$ meson.

1142: The heaviest pion mass at $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13754,0.13640)$

1143: is about 410~MeV with the use of $a^{-1}=2.176(31)$ GeV determined below.

1144: The measured bare AWI quark masses, but corrected for the $O(ma)$ corrections

1145: at one-loop perturbation theory,  

1146: are used for ${m_{\rm ud}}$ and $m_{\rm s}$ 

1147: in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:chpt_mpi})$-$(\ref{eq:chpt_fk}).

1148: 

1149: We present the fit results for the low energy constants 

1150: in Table~\ref{tab:fit_su3chpt}.  

1151: The results are quoted both without (w/o FSE) 

1152: and with (w/ FSE) finite-size corrections in the ChPT formulae 

1153: (see Sec~\ref{subsec:fse}).   We also list 

1154: the phenomenological estimates with the experimental

1155: inputs~\cite{colangelo05,amoros01}, and the results obtained 

1156: by recent 2+1 flavor lattice QCD calculations~\cite{rbcukqcd08,milc07}.  

1157: The renormalization scale is set to be 770~MeV. The MILC results

1158: for the low energy constants quoted at the scale of $m_\eta$ 

1159: are converted according to Ref.~\cite{chpt_nf3}

1160: \begin{widetext}

1161: \ben

1162: L_4(\mu)&=&L_4(m_\eta)-\frac{1}{256\pi^2}

1163: \ln\left(\frac{\mu^2}{m_\eta^2}\right),\\

1164: L_5(\mu)&=&L_5(m_\eta)-\frac{3}{256\pi^2}

1165: \ln\left(\frac{\mu^2}{m_\eta^2}\right),\\

1166: (2L_6-L_4)(\mu)&=&(2L_6-L_4)(m_\eta)-\left(\frac{2}{9}\right)\frac{1}{256\pi^2}

1167: \ln\left(\frac{\mu^2}{m_\eta^2}\right),\\

1168: (2L_8-L_5)(\mu)&=&(2L_8-L_5)(m_\eta)+\left(\frac{4}{3}\right)\frac{1}{256\pi^2}

1169: \ln\left(\frac{\mu^2}{m_\eta^2}\right)

1170: \een   

1171: \end{widetext}

1172: with $\mu$ the renormalization scale.

1173: For $L_4$ and $L_5$ governing the behavior of $f_\pi$ and $f_K$, 

1174: we find that all the results are compatible. 

1175: On the other hand, some discrepancies are observed for the results 

1176: of $2L_6-L_4$ and $2L_8-L_5$ contained in the ChPT formulae 

1177: for $m_\pi^2$ and $m_K^2$.

1178: 

1179:  

1180: For later convenience we convert the SU(3) low energy constants

1181: $B_0,f_0,L_{4,5,6,8}$ to the SU(2) low energy constants $B,f,

1182: l_{3,4}$ defined by

1183: \ben

1184: \frac{m_\pi^2}{2{m_{\rm ud}}}&=&B\left\{1+\mu_\pi(B_0\rightarrow B,

1185: f_0\rightarrow f)+4\frac{{\bar m}_\pi^2}{f^2}l_3\right\},\nn\\

1186: \label{eq:su2chpt_mpi}\\

1187: f_\pi&=&f\left\{1- 2\mu_\pi(B_0\rightarrow B, f_0\rightarrow f)

1188: +2\frac{{\bar m}_\pi^2}{f^2}l_4\right\}\nn\\

1189: \label{eq:su2chpt_fpi}

1190: \een

1191: with ${\bar m}_\pi^2=m_{\rm ud}B$.

1192: The NLO relations are given by\cite{chpt_nf3}

1193: \ben

1194: B&=&B_0\left(1-\frac{1}{3}{\bar \mu}_\eta+

1195: \frac{32 {\bar m}^2_{K}}{f_0^2}(2L_6-L_4) \right),\\

1196: f&=&f_0\left(1-{\bar \mu}_K+

1197: \frac{16 {\bar m}^2_{K}}{f_0^2}L_4 \right),\\

1198: l_3&=&-8L_4-4L_5+16L_6+8L_8-\frac{1}{18}{\bar \nu}_\eta,\\

1199: l_4&=&8L_4+4L_5-\frac{1}{2}{\bar \nu}_K,

1200: \een

1201: where ${\bar \mu}_{K,\eta}$ and ${\bar \nu}_{K,\eta}$ are defined by

1202: \ben

1203: {\bar \mu}_{K,\eta}=\frac{{\bar m}^2_{K,\eta}}{16\pi^2f_0^2}

1204: \ln\left(\frac{{\bar m}^2_{K,\eta}}{\mu^2}\right),\\

1205: {\bar \nu}_{K,\eta}=\frac{1}{32\pi^2}

1206: \left(\ln\left(\frac{{\bar m}^2_{K,\eta}}{\mu^2}\right)+1\right)

1207: \een

1208: with 

1209: \ben

1210: {\bar m}^2_{K}&=&m_{\rm s}B_0,\\

1211: {\bar m}^2_{\eta}&=&\frac{4}{3}m_{\rm s}B_0,

1212: \een

1213: and ${\bar l}_i$ ($i=3,4$) are defined at the renormalization scale

1214: $\mu=m_\pi=139.6$ MeV\cite{chpt_nf2}:

1215: \ben

1216: l_i&=&\frac{\gamma_i}{32\pi^2}\left({\bar l}_i+\ln\frac{m^2_\pi}{\mu^2}\right)

1217: \een

1218: with

1219: \ben

1220: \gamma_3&=&-\frac{1}{2},\\

1221: \gamma_4&=&2.

1222: \een

1223: In Table~\ref{tab:lec_su2_conv} we summarize the results for 

1224: the SU(2) low energy constants obtained by the conversion from the

1225: SU(3) low energy constants.

1226: The vacuum condensations are defined by

1227: \ben

1228: \langle {\bar u}u\rangle_0 &\equiv & \langle {\bar

1229: u}u\rangle\vert_{m_{\rm ud}=m_{\rm s}=0}=-\frac{1}{2}f_0^2 B_0,\\ 

1230: \langle {\bar u}u\rangle &\equiv & \langle {\bar

1231: u}u\rangle\vert_{m_{\rm ud}=0,m_{\rm s}=m_{\rm s}^{\rm physical}}

1232: =-\frac{1}{2}f^2B.

1233: %R_{\rm OZI}&=&\frac{\langle {\bar u}u\rangle}{\langle {\bar u}u\rangle_0}.

1234: \een

1235: These quantities are perturbatively renormalized

1236: at the scale of 2 GeV.

1237: 

1238: In Fig.~\ref{fig:l_34} we compare our results for 

1239: ${\bar l}_{3,4}$ with 

1240: those obtained by other groups 

1241: whose numerical values are listed in Table~\ref{tab:l_34}. 

1242: Black symbols denote the

1243: phenomenological estimates, blue symbols represent

1244: the results obtained by the SU(2) ChPT fit on 

1245: 2 flavor dynamical configurations and red closed (open) symbols

1246: are for those obtained by the SU(3) (SU(2)) ChPT fit

1247: on 2+1 flavor dynamical configurations.

1248: For ${\bar l}_3$ all the results 

1249: reside between 3.0 and 3.5, except for the MILC result which is 

1250: sizably smaller and marginally consistent with others within a large error. 

1251: On the other hand, we find a good consistency

1252: among the results for ${\bar l}_4$. 

1253: 

1254: 

1255: We have found that the SU(3) ChPT fit gives reasonable 

1256: values for the low energy constants.  However, we are concerned with a rather

1257: large value of $\chi^2$/dof=4.2(2.9) (see Table~\ref{tab:fit_su3chpt}).

1258: Figures~\ref{fig:su3fit_mps} and \ref{fig:su3fit_fps}

1259: show how well the

1260: data for $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}$,  $2m_K^2/(m_{\rm ud}+m_{\rm s})$, $f_\pi$

1261: and $f_K$ are described by the SU(3) ChPT up to NLO. 

1262: The filled and open circles are our data, and the fit results are plotted 

1263: by blue triangles.

1264: % 

1265: We note in passing that , 

1266: for the Wilson-clover quark action, $m_s^{\rm AWI}$ 

1267: varies at $O(a^2)$ as $m_{\rm ud}$ varies even if $\kappa_{\rm s}$ is 

1268: held fixed. Thus we are not able to draw a line with a fixed value 

1269: for $m_s^{\rm AWI}$.

1270: %

1271: The blue star symbols represent the extrapolated values at the

1272: physical point whose determination will be explained below

1273: in Sec.~\ref{sec:physicalpt}. 

1274: 

1275: The points around $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}\approx 0.01$ corresponds to 

1276: $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13754,0.13640)$ and $(0.13754,0.13660)$. 

1277: Marked deviations between circles and triangles show that the SU(3) ChPT poorly 

1278: accounts for the strange quark mass dependence of $f_\pi$ and $f_K$.

1279: This flaw is mainly responsible for the large value of $\chi^2$/dof.

1280: 

1281: In order to investigate the origin of discrepancy between the data and the fit 

1282: more closely,  we draw the relative magnitude of the NLO contribution to the 

1283: LO one for $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}$,  $2m_K^2/(m_{\rm ud}+m_{\rm s})$, $f_\pi$ and $f_K$

1284: as a function of $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$ in Figs.~\ref{fig:su3nlo2lo_mps} 

1285: and \ref{fig:su3nlo2lo_fps}.  The strange quark 

1286: mass is fixed at the physical value, and the contributions from $\pi$, $K$ and 

1287: $\eta$ loops are separately drawn. 

1288: The relative magnitudes are at most 10\% for

1289: $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}$ and $2m_K/(m_{\rm ud}+m_{\rm s})$.  We find, however, 

1290: significant NLO contributions for the decay constants. 

1291: For $f_\pi$ the relative magnitude rapidly increases from 10\% at 

1292: $m_{\rm ud}=0$ to 40\% at around $m_{\rm ud}=0.01$. 

1293: The situation is worse for $f_K$ for which the NLO contribution is about 40\% of 

1294: the LO one even at $m_{\rm ud}=0$, most of which arises from the $K$ loop. 

1295: 

1296: 

1297: \subsection{SU(2) chiral perturbation theory}

1298: 

1299: The bad convergences of the chiral expansions 

1300: for $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ tell us that the strange quark

1301: mass is not light enough to be appropriately treated by the NLO SU(3)

1302: ChPT. There are two alternative choices for further chiral

1303: analysis. One is to extend SU(3) ChPT to NNLO, and the other is to use 

1304: SU(2) ChPT with the aid of an analytic expansion for the strange

1305: quark contribution around the physical strange quark mass.

1306: 

1307: The former method, which has been employed by the MILC collaboration 

1308: in an incomplete fashion\cite{milc07}, is very demanding: 

1309: we cannot determine the additional low energy constants at NNLO without 

1310: significantly increasing the data points.  There is in addition no guarantee

1311: that the expansion is controlled at NNLO. 

1312: We therefore consider that the latter route is more natural.

1313: This alternative was employed by the RBC/UKQCD collaboration\cite{rbcukqcd08}. 

1314: Since they had data only at a single strange quark mass, they could not study 

1315: the strange quark mass dependence.  This we shall do with our data 

1316: thanks to the second choice of 

1317: the strange quark mass at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13754$.

1318: 

1319: For $m_\pi$ and $f_\pi$ the SU(2) ChPT formulae of (\ref{eq:su2chpt_mpi}) 

1320: and (\ref{eq:su2chpt_fpi}) are employed.  The low energy constants $B$

1321: and $f$ are functions of the strange quark mass.  Assuming that we run 

1322: simulations close enough around the physical point for the strange quark mass 

1323: so that a linear expansion in $m_{\rm s}$ is sufficient, we write 

1324: $B=B_s^{(0)}+m_{\rm s}B_s^{(1)}$ and $f=f_s^{(0)}+m_{\rm s}f_s^{(1)}$, 

1325: where it should be noted that $B_s^{(0)}\ne B_0$ and $f_s^{(0)}\ne f_0$.

1326: 

1327: For the kaon sector we treat the $K$ mesons as matter fields 

1328: in the isospin $1/2$ linear representation, and couple pions 

1329: in SU(2) invariant ways (see, {\it e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{roessl}).

1330: For $m_K$ and $f_K$ this leads to the following fit formulae: 

1331: \ben

1332: m_K^2&=&\alpha_m+\beta_m m_{\rm ud}+\gamma_m m_{\rm s},

1333: \label{eq:su2chpt_mk}\\

1334: %f_K&=&\bar f\nn\\

1335: f_K&=&{\bar f} \left\{1+\beta_f m_{\rm ud} -\frac{3}{4}\frac{{\tilde m}_\pi^2}{16\pi^2 f^2}

1336: \ln\left(\frac{{\tilde m}_\pi^2}{\mu^2}\right) \right\}

1337: \label{eq:su2chpt_fk}

1338: \een

1339: with ${\bar f}={\bar f}_s^{(0)}+m_{\rm s}{\bar f}_s^{(1)}$. 

1340: In these formulae, the linear expansion in $m_{\rm s}$ should be regarded 

1341: as that around the physical strange quark mass.  

1342: 

1343: 

1344: We apply a simultaneous fit to $m_\pi$, $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ 

1345: employing the formulae of Eqs.~(\ref{eq:su2chpt_mpi}), (\ref{eq:su2chpt_fpi})

1346: and (\ref{eq:su2chpt_fk}).  The kaon mass 

1347: $m_K^2$ is independently fitted according to Eq.~(\ref{eq:su2chpt_mk}). 

1348: Calling the four data points corresponding to $\kappa_{\rm ud}\geq 0.13754$

1349: as Range I, the fit results for $B,f,{\bar l}_3,{\bar l}_4$ at the physical 

1350: strange quark mass are presented in

1351: Table~\ref{tab:fit_su2chpt} and Fig.~\ref{fig:l_34} both without and with 

1352: finite-size corrections. 

1353: We find that they are consistent with

1354: those obtained by the NLO conversion from the SU(3) low energy constants

1355: given in Table~\ref{tab:lec_su2_conv}.

1356: Although our result for $\la {\bar u}u\ra$ is about 50\% smaller than that 

1357: of RBC/UKQCD, the difference comes from estimates of 

1358: the renormalization factor: we use one-loop perturbation while they 

1359: employ the nonperturbative RI-MOM scheme.

1360: This is verified by the observation that

1361: the value of $f$ and the renormalization-free quantities $m_{\rm ud} B$

1362: and $m_{\rm s} B$ show consistency

1363: between our results and those of RBC/UKQCD.

1364: 

1365: Figures~\ref{fig:su2fit_mpi} and \ref{fig:su2fit_fps} show that 

1366: the quark mass dependences of $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$, 

1367: $f_\pi$ and $f_K$

1368: are reasonably described by the SU(2) ChPT formulae of

1369: (\ref{eq:su2chpt_mpi}), (\ref{eq:su2chpt_fpi}) 

1370: and (\ref{eq:su2chpt_fk}). The resulting  $\chi^2$/dof is 0.33(72),

1371: which is an order of magnitude smaller than in the SU(3) case. 

1372: In Fig.~\ref{fig:su2nlo2lo} we illustrate the relative magnitude of  

1373: the NLO contribution against the LO value for 

1374: $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}$, $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ as a function of $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$

1375: fixing the strange quark mass at the physical value. 

1376: The convergences for $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ are clearly better than the SU(3) case.

1377: 

1378: In order to investigate the stability of the fit, we try two additional 

1379: choices of the data sets for the SU(2) ChPT fit: 

1380: Range II ($\kappa_{\rm ud}$,$\kappa_{\rm s}$)=(0.13781,0.13640),(0.13770,0.13640),

1381: (0.13754,0.13640),(0.13754,0.13660),(0.13727,0.13640) includes one more data 

1382: at a heavier pion mass added to Range I, and Range III 

1383: ($\kappa_{\rm ud}$,$\kappa_{\rm s}$)=(0.13770,0.13640),

1384: (0.13754,0.13640),(0.13754,0.13660),(0.13727,0.13640) removes the point with 

1385: the lightest pion mass from Range II.  

1386: The results for $B,f,{\bar l}_3,{\bar l}_4$ and corresponding 

1387: $\chi^2$/dof are given in Table~\ref{tab:fit_su2chpt}.

1388: While inclusion of the data at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13727$

1389: increases the value of $\chi^2$/dof, the results for $B,f,{\bar l}_3,{\bar

1390: l}_4$ are consistent among the three cases within the error bars.

1391: 

1392: 

1393: \subsection{Finite size effects based on chiral perturbation theory}

1394: \label{subsec:fse}

1395: 

1396: We evaluate finite-size effects based on the NLO formulae of ChPT.

1397: In the case of SU(3) ChPT the finite size effects defined by 

1398: $R_X=(X(L)-X(\infty))/X(\infty)$ for $X=m_\pi,m_K,f_\pi,f_K$ are given 

1399: by~\cite{colangelo05}:

1400: \ben

1401: R_{m_\pi}%=\frac{M_{\pi}(L)-M_{\pi}}{M_{\pi}}

1402: &=&\frac{1}{4}\xi_{\pi}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\pi)-\frac{1}{12}\xi_{\eta}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\eta),\\

1403: R_{m_K} %=\frac{M_K(L)-M_K}{M_K}

1404: &=&\frac{1}{6}\xi_{\eta}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\eta),\\

1405: R_{f_\pi} %=\frac{F_{\pi}(L)-F_{\pi}}{F_{\pi}}

1406: &=&-\xi_{\pi}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\pi)-\frac{1}{2}\xi_{K}\tilde g_1(\lambda_K),\\

1407: R_{f_K} %=\frac{F_K(L)-F_K}{F_K}

1408: &=&-\frac{3}{8}\xi_{\pi}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\pi)-\frac{3}{4}\xi_{K}\tilde g_1(\lambda_K)

1409: -\frac{3}{8}\xi_{\eta}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\eta)\nn\\

1410: \een

1411: with

1412: \ben

1413: \xi_{\rm PS} &\equiv& \frac{2m_{\rm PS}^2}{(4\pi f_\pi)^2},\\

1414: \lambda_{\rm PS} &\equiv& m_{\rm PS} L, \\

1415: \tilde g_1(x)&=&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{4m(n)}{{\sqrt n }x} K_1({\sqrt n} x), 

1416: \een

1417: where $K_1$ is the Bessel function of the second kind and $m(n)$

1418: denotes the multiplicity of the partition $n=n_x^2+n_y^2+n_z^2$. 

1419: The authors in Ref.~\cite{colangelo05} expect that the above formulea

1420: are valid for $m_\pi L>2$, in which our simulation points reside. 

1421: In Figs.~\ref{fig:su3fit_mps} and \ref{fig:su3fit_fps}

1422: we also plotted the ChPT fit results including finite size effects.

1423: The results are almost degenerate with the fit results 

1424: without finite size effects except at the lightest simulation point 

1425: at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ and the

1426: extrapolated values at the physical point. This feature is understood

1427: by looking at Fig.~\ref{fig:fse_su3} where we plot the magnitude of $R_X$ for 

1428: $X=m_\pi,m_K,f_\pi,f_K$ with $L=2.9$ fm as a function of $m_\pi$ 

1429: keeping the strange quark mass fixed at the physical value.

1430: %It should be noted that $R_{m_{\rm PS}}>0$ and $R_{f_{\rm PS}}<0$.

1431: The expected finite size effects are less than 2\% for $m_{\rm PS}$ and

1432: $f_{\rm PS}$ at our simulation points. For $m_{\rm PS}$ this is true 

1433: even at the physical point, while the value of $f_\pi$ is 

1434: decreased by 4\% due to the finite size effects. 

1435: 

1436: We can repeat the above study for the SU(2) case. 

1437: The NLO formulae for $m_\pi$ and $f_\pi$ are given by\cite{colangelo05}

1438: \ben

1439: R^\prime_{m_\pi}%=\frac{M_{\pi}(L)-M_{\pi}}{M_{\pi}}

1440: &=&\frac{1}{4}\xi_{\pi}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\pi),\\

1441: R^\prime_{f_\pi} %=\frac{F_{\pi}(L)-F_{\pi}}{F_{\pi}}

1442: &=&-\xi_{\pi}\tilde g_1(\lambda_\pi).

1443: \een

1444: In Figs.~\ref{fig:su2fit_mpi} and \ref{fig:su2fit_fps}

1445: we hardly detect finite size effects for $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}>0.001$.   

1446: Figure~\ref{fig:fse_su2} shows $R_X^\prime$ for 

1447: $X=m_\pi,f_\pi$ with $L=2.9$ fm as a function of $m_\pi$.

1448: The situation is similar to the SU(3) case: although finite size

1449: effects increase as $m_\pi$ decreases, their magnitudes are at most 2\%

1450: for $m_\pi$ and 4\% for $f_\pi$

1451: even at the physical point, which is easily expected 

1452: by comparing the expressions of $R$ and $R^\prime$.

1453: 

1454: Let us add a cautionary note that the finite-size formulae analyzed 

1455: here lose viability when $m_\pi L$ becomes too small.  Precisely at 

1456: what values of $m_\pi L$ this takes place is not well controlled 

1457: theoretically, however.  Direct simulations on a larger lattice 

1458: is required to pin down the actual magnitude of finite-size effects at the 

1459: physical point.  The need for such calculations are even more for baryons 

1460: whose sizes are larger than mesons.    

1461: 

1462: 

1463: \section{Results at the physical point}

1464: \label{sec:physicalpt}

1465: 

1466: We need three physical inputs to determine the up-down and 

1467: the strange quark masses and the lattice cutoff.

1468: We choose $m_\pi$, $m_K$ and $m_\Omega$.  The choice of 

1469: $m_\Omega$ has both theoretical and practical advantages:

1470: the $\Omega$ baryon is stable in the strong interactions

1471: and its mass, being composed of three strange quarks, 

1472: is determined with good precision with small finite 

1473: size effects. 

1474: 

1475: For the pseudoscalar meson sector, we employ SU(2) chiral expansion 

1476: as explained in the previous Section.

1477: For the vector mesons and the baryons we use a simple linear formula

1478: $m_{\rm had}=\alpha_h+\beta_h m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}+\gamma_h m_{\rm s}^{\rm

1479: AWI}$, employing the data set in the same range   

1480: $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$ as for the pseudoscalar meson sector.

1481: We do not rely on heavy meson effective 

1482: theory (HMET)\cite{hmet} or heavy baryon ChPT (HBChPT)\cite{hbchpt}

1483: since they show very poor convergences even 

1484: at the physical point\cite{convergence}.

1485: In Figs.~\ref{fig:chexp_vector},  \ref{fig:chexp_octet} and 

1486: \ref{fig:chexp_decuplet},

1487: we show linear chiral extrapolations

1488: of the vector meson, the octet and the decuplet baryon masses,

1489: respectively. Blue symbols represent the fit results at the measured values of

1490: $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$. The extrapolated values at the 

1491: physical point are also denoted by blue star symbols, which should be

1492: compared with the experimental values plotted at $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}=0$. 

1493: 

1494: Since the linear fit is applied to the data set at $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge

1495: 0.13754$, blue symbols at  $\kappa_{\rm ud}< 0.13754$ express the

1496: predictions from the fit results.

1497: We observe that the quark mass dependence of $m_\Omega$ 

1498: is remarkably well described by the linear function, which assures

1499: that $m_\Omega$ is a good quantity for the physical input in the sense

1500: that its chiral behavior is easily controlled.

1501: 

1502: The results for the physical quark masses and the lattice cutoff are listed in

1503: Table~\ref{tab:physicalpt_qmass},

1504: where the errors are statistical. They are provided

1505: with and without the finite size corrections based on the NLO SU(2) ChPT

1506: analyses. Both results are almost degenerate.

1507: We find that our quark masses

1508: are smaller than the estimates in the recent 2+1 flavor 

1509: lattice QCD calculations\cite{rbcukqcd08,milc07}.  We note, however, 

1510: that we employ the perturbative renormalization factors at one-loop level 

1511: which should contain an uncertainty.  A nonperturbative calculation 

1512: of the renormalization factor is in progress using the Schr\"odinger 

1513: functional scheme. 

1514: 

1515: In Table~\ref{tab:physicalpt_qmass} we also present

1516: the results for the pseudoscalar meson decay constants

1517: at the physical point

1518: using the physical quark masses and the cutoff determined above, 

1519: which should be compared with the experimental values 

1520: $f_\pi=130.7$~MeV, $f_K=159.8$~MeV, $f_K/f_\pi = 1.223$\cite{pdg}.

1521: We observe a good consistency within the error of 2--3\%.  The

1522: ratio is 3\% smaller than the experimental value in the case of the

1523: SU(2) ChPT fit with the finite size corrections. 

1524: A nonperturbative calculation of $Z_A$ is also in progress. 

1525: 

1526: In Fig.~\ref{fig:spectrum} the light hadron spectrum 

1527: extrapolated to the physical point using SU(2) ChPT with the finite

1528: size corrections are compared with the experimental values.

1529: Numerical values with and without the

1530: finite size corrections are listed in Table~\ref{tab:physicalpt_hmass}.

1531: The largest discrepancy between our results and the

1532: experimental values is at most 3\%, albeit errors are still not small 

1533: for the $\rho$ meson, the nucleon and the $\Delta$ baryon. 

1534: The results are clearly encouraging, but  

1535: further work is needed to remove the cutoff errors of $O((a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2)$.

1536: 

1537: 

1538: \section{Static quark potential}

1539: \label{sec:potential}

1540: 

1541: In addition to the hadronic observables presented so far,

1542: we also calculate the Sommer scale which is

1543: a popular gluonic observable.

1544: In order to calculate the static quark potential we measure 

1545: the temporal and the spatial Wilson loops with the use of the

1546: smearing procedure of Ref.~\cite{smear}.

1547: The number of smearing steps is determined to be 20 after

1548: examining the sufficient overlap of the Wilson loops onto the ground state. 

1549: The potential $V(r)$ is extracted from the Wilson loops 

1550: applying a correlated fit of the form 

1551: \ben

1552: W(r,t)=C(r)\exp(-V(r)t),

1553: \een

1554: where the same fitting range $[t_{\rm min},t_{\rm max}]=[5,8]$ is 

1555: chosen for all the simulations after investigating the 

1556: effective potential

1557: \ben

1558: V_{\rm eff}(r,t)=\ln\left[\frac{W(r,t)}{W(r,t+1)}\right].

1559: \een

1560: Figure~\ref{fig:v_eff} shows a typical case of $V_{\rm eff}(r,t)$ 

1561: with $r=4,8,12$ at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13770$.

1562: We find that plateau starts at $t=4$ and signals are lost beyond $t=7$.

1563: A result of $V(r)$ at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13770$ is plotted

1564: in Fig.~\ref{fig:potential} as a representative case. 

1565: Since good rotational symmetry 

1566: and no sign of the string breaking are observed, 

1567: we employ the following fitting form for the potential:

1568: \ben

1569: V(r)=V_0-\frac{\alpha}{r}+\sigma r,

1570: \label{eq:potential}

1571: \een

1572: where $V_0$, $\alpha$, $\sigma$ are unknown parameters.

1573: The fitting range is $[r_{\min},r_{\max}] = [3,16]$.

1574: 

1575: The Sommer scale $r_0$ is a phenomenological quantity 

1576: defined by

1577: \ben

1578: r_0^2=\left.\frac{dV(r)}{dr}\right\vert_{r=r_0}=1.65.

1579: \een

1580: Given Eq.~(\ref{eq:potential}) we obtain

1581: \ben

1582: r_0=\sqrt{\frac{1.65-\alpha}{\sigma}}.

1583: \een

1584: In Table~\ref{tab:potential} we list the results for $r_0$  

1585: including the systematic errors due to the choices of $t_{\rm min}$ and 

1586: $r_{\rm min}$. 

1587: 

1588: At $(\kappa_{\rm ud}, \kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13700, 0.13640)$, our 

1589: result is compared with those of CP-PACS/JLQCD \cite{cp-pacs/jlqcd3} in 

1590: Table~\ref{tab:r0comp}.  The two results are in reasonable agreement

1591: given the sizable magnitude of systematic errors caused by 

1592: the shortness of plateau of effective masses for potentials.

1593: 

1594: In order to extrapolate $r_0$ to the physical point

1595: we employ a linear form

1596: $1/r_0=\alpha_r+\beta_r\cdot m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}+\gamma_r\cdot m_{\rm s}^{\rm AWI}$

1597: for the data set at $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$.

1598: We illustrate the chiral extrapolation in Fig.~\ref{fig:chexp_r0},

1599: where the fit results are plotted by red triangles at the measured 

1600: values of $m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$. 

1601: The extrapolated result of $r_0$ at the physical point 

1602: is 5.427(51)(+81)($-2$), which is

1603: 0.4921(64)(+74)($-2$) fm in physical units 

1604: with the aid of $a^{-1}=2.176(31)$ GeV. The first error is statistical 

1605: and the second and the third ones are the 

1606:  systematic uncertainties originating from 

1607: the choice of $t_{\rm min}$ and $r_{\rm min}$, respectively.

1608: 

1609: 

1610: \section{Conclusion}

1611: \label{sec:conclusion}

1612: 

1613: We have presented the first results of the PACS-CS project which aims at 

1614: a 2+1 flavor lattice QCD simulation at the physical point

1615: using the $O(a)$-improved Wilson quark action. 

1616: The DDHMC algorithm, coupled with several algorithmic improvements, 

1617: have enabled us to reach $m_{\pi}=156$~MeV,  which corresponds to 

1618: $m_{\rm ud}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu=2{\rm ~GeV})= 3.6$~MeV. 

1619: We are almost on the physical point, except that the strange quark mass

1620: is about 20\% larger than the physical value.

1621: 

1622: We clearly observe the characteristic features of the chiral logarithm 

1623: in the ratios $m_\pi^2/m_{\rm ud}^{\rm AWI}$ and $f_K/f_\pi$. 

1624: We find that our data are not well described by the NLO SU(3) ChPT, 

1625: due to bad convergence of the strange quark contributions. 

1626: We instead employ the NLO SU(2) ChPT for $m_\pi$ and

1627: $f_\pi$, and an analytic expansion around the physical strange quark mass

1628: for $m_K$ and $f_K$ in order to estimate the physical point. 

1629: The low energy constants obtained in this way are compatible

1630: with phenomenological estimates and other recent lattice calculations. 

1631: 

1632: Thanks to the enlarged physical volume 

1633: compared to the previous CP-PACS/JLQCD work,

1634: we obtain good signals not only for the meson masses 

1635: but also for the baryon masses. 

1636: After linear chiral extrapolations of the vector and baryon masses

1637: the hadron spectrum at the physical point 

1638: shows a good agreement with the experimental values,

1639: albeit some of the hadrons have rather large errors and scaling violations 

1640: remain to be examined.

1641: We find smaller values for the physical quark masses 

1642: compared to the recent estimates in the literature.

1643: This may be due to the one-loop estimate of the renormalization factor.

1644: 

1645: At present the simulation at the physical point is under way, and

1646: the statistics of the run at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ is being accumulated.

1647: We are evaluating the nonperturbative renormalization factors

1648: for the quark masses and the pseudoscalar meson decay constants in 

1649: order to remove perturbative uncertainties.

1650: 

1651: Once these calculations are accomplished,

1652: the next step is to investigate the finite size effects 

1653: at the physical point,  and then to reduce the discretization errors by 

1654: repeating the calculations at finer lattice spacings. 

1655: 

1656: 

1657: 

1658: \begin{acknowledgments}

1659: Numerical calculations for the present work have been carried out

1660: on the PACS-CS computer 

1661: under the ``Interdisciplinary Computational Science Program'' of 

1662: Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba. 

1663: We thank T. Sakurai and H. Tadano for a series of informative discussions 

1664: on single precision acceleration of the solver.  

1665: One of the authors (Y.K.) thank

1666: A.~Kennedy for valuable discussions on the algorithmic improvements.

1667: A part of the code development has been carried out on Hitachi SR11000 

1668: at Information Media Center of Hiroshima University. 

1669: This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research

1670: from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology

1671: (Nos.

1672: %13135204, 

1673: %15540251, 

1674: 16740147,   %Ishikawa

1675: 17340066,   %Kanaya

1676: %17540259, 

1677: 18104005,   %Ukawa

1678: 18540250,   %Kuramashi

1679: 18740130,   %Taniguchi

1680: %18740139,   

1681: 19740134,   %Izubuchi

1682: 20340047,   %Aoki

1683: 20540248,   %Ishizuka

1684: 20740123,   %Ukita

1685: 20740139    %Ishikawa

1686: ).

1687: \end{acknowledgments}

1688: 

1689: \input{appendix}

1690: 

1691: %\newpage %Just because of unusual number of tables stacked at end

1692: \bibliography{apssamp}% Produces the bibliography via BibTeX.

1693: 

1694: \input{refs}

1695: 

1696: \clearpage

1697: %\newpage

1698: 

1699: 

1700: \input{tables}

1701: 

1702: \clearpage

1703: %\newpage

1704: 

1705: \input{figs}

1706: 

1707: \end{document}

1708: