1: % Please use the skeleton file you have received in the
2: % invitation-to-submit email, where your data are already
3: % filled in. Otherwise please make sure you insert your
4: % data according to the instructions in PoSauthmanual.pdf
5: %%%%% Personal Macros %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
6: \newcommand{\msbar}{{\overline {\rm MS}}}
7: \def\lsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
8: \def\gsim{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
9: \def\simgt{\rlap{\lower 6.0 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 2.5pt \hbox {$>$}}
10: \def\simlt{\rlap{\lower 6.0 pt\hbox{$\mathchar \sim$}}\raise 2.5pt \hbox {$<$}}
11: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
12: \documentclass{PoS}
13:
14: \title{2+1 flavor lattice QCD simulation with $O(a)$-improved Wilson quarks }
15:
16: \ShortTitle{2+1 flaavor lattice QCD simulation with $O(a)$-improved Wilson quarks }
17:
18: \author{PACS-CS Collaboration :
19: \speaker{N. Ukita}${}^{a}$\thanks{E-mail: ukita@ccs.tsukuba.ac.jp},
20: S.~Aoki${}^{b,c}$,
21: N. Ishii${}^{a}$,
22: K.-I.~Ishikawa${}^{d}$,
23: N.~Ishizuka${}^{a,b}$,
24: T. Izubuchi${}^{c,e}$,
25: D. Kadoh${}^{a}$,
26: K.~Kanaya${}^{b}$,
27: Y. Kuramashi${}^{a,b}$,
28: Y. Namekawa${}^{a}$,
29: M.~Okawa${}^{d}$,
30: Y.~Taniguchi${}^{a,b}$,
31: A.~Ukawa${}^{a,b}$,
32: T.~Yoshi\'e${}^{a,b}$
33: \\
34: \llap{${}^a$}Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8577, Japan\\
35: \llap{${}^b$}Graduate School of Pure and Applied Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8571, Japan\\
36: \llap{${}^c$}Riken BNL Research Center, Brook-haven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973, USA\\
37: \llap{${}^d$}Graduate School of Sciences, Hiroshima University, Higashi-Hiroshima, Hiroshima 739-8526, Japan\\
38: \llap{${}^e$}Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kanazawa University, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan}
39:
40: \abstract{We present simulation details and results for
41: the light hadron spectrum in $N_f = 2 + 1$ lattice QCD with
42: the nonperturbatively $O(a)$-improved Wilson quark action
43: and the Iwasaki gauge action.
44: Simulations are carried out at a lattice spacing of 0.09 fm
45: on a (2.9fm$)^3$ box using the PACS-CS computer. We
46: employ the L\"uscher's domain-decomposed HMC algorithm with several
47: improvements
48: %combined with the Hasenbusch trick
49: to reduce the degenerate up-down quark mass toward the physical value.
50: So far the resulting pseudoscalar meson
51: mass is ranging from 702MeV down to 156MeV. We discuss on the
52: stability and the efficiency of the algorithm.
53: The light harden spectrum extrapolated
54: at the physical point is compared with the experimental
55: values. We also present the values of the quark masses and the
56: pseudoscalar meson decay constants.}
57:
58: \FullConference{The XXVI International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory\\
59: July 14-19 2008\\
60: Williamsburg, Virginia, USA}
61:
62: \begin{document}
63:
64: %%%
65: %%% Introduction
66: %%%
67: \section{Introduction}
68: The PACS-CS (Parallel Array Computer System for Computational Sciences)
69: project\cite{aoki,ukawa,kuramashi,kuramashi2,ukita,kadoh2,kuramashi3,pacscs}
70: aims at $N_f=2+1$ lattice QCD calculations at the physical point
71: to remove the most troublesome systematic errors associated with
72: the chiral extrapolations.
73: So far our simulation points cover from 67MeV to 3.5MeV for the
74: degenerate up-down quark mass with the strange quark mass fixed around
75: the physical value.
76: The reduction of $m_{\rm ud}$ down to 10 MeV is achieved
77: by the domain-decomposed Hybrid Monte Carlo (DDHMC) algorithm
78: with the replay trick\cite{luscher,kennedy}.
79: For the simulation at $m_{\rm ud}=3.5$ MeV we incorporate some
80: algorithmic improvements such as
81: the mass preconditioning\cite{hasenbusch,hasenbusch2}, the chronological
82: inverter\cite{brower} and the deflation teqnique\cite{parks}
83: which make simulations stable and contribute to reduce
84: the simulation cost. For the strange quark part we employ
85: the UV-filtered Polynomial Hybrid Monte Carlo (UVPHMC)
86: algorithm\cite{ishikawa}.
87:
88: In this report we present the simulation details and some eminent
89: results for the hadron spectrum. Chiral analyses on
90: the pseudoscalar meson sector with the SU(2) and SU(3)
91: chiral perturbation theories
92: and calculation of the charm quark systems with the relativistic
93: heavy quark action are given in separate reports\cite{kadoh, namekawa}.
94:
95: %%%
96: %%% Simulation details
97: %%%
98: \section{Simulation details}
99: We employ the $O(a)$-improved Wison quark action with
100: a nonperturbative improvement coefficient $c_{\rm sw}=1.715$\cite{csw}
101: and the Iwasaki gauge action\cite{iwasaki}. All the
102: simulations are carried out on a $32^3\times64$ lattice
103: at $\beta=1.90$ corresponding to the lattice spacing of $a=0.09$ fm.
104: Table~\ref{tab:param} summarizes our simulation parameters.
105: We choose combinations of the hopping parameters
106: $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})$ based on
107: the previous CP-PACS/JLQCD results\cite{cppacs/jlqcd1,cppacs/jlqcd2}
108: except $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.137785,0.13660)$
109: which is adjusted at the physical point with the use of the PACS-CS results
110: in an early stage\cite{pacscs,kuramashi2}. The physics results at
111: $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=(0.137785,0.13660)$ is presented
112: in Ref.~\cite{kuramashi3}.
113:
114: The DDHMC algorithm is implemented for the up-down quark
115: by domain-decomposing the full lattice with an $8^4$ block size
116: as a preconditioner for HMC. The domain-decomposition factorizes
117: the up-down quark determinant into the UV and the IR parts
118: geometrically.
119: As a result we have the gauge force and the up-down quark force
120: with the UV and the IR parts
121: in the molecular dynamics evolution. The reduction of the simulation
122: cost is achieved by applying the multiple time scale
123: integrator\cite{sexton} to these
124: three forces. We find that the relative magnitude
125: of the force terms is given as follows:
126: \begin{eqnarray}
127: ||F_{\rm G}||:||F_{\rm UV}||:||F_{\rm IR}|| \approx 16:4:1,
128: \end{eqnarray}
129: where $F_{\rm G}$ denotes the gauge part and $F_{\rm UV, IR}$ for the UV
130: and the IR parts of the up-down quark. The associated step
131: sizes
132: $\delta\tau_{\rm G}, \delta\tau_{\rm UV}, \delta\tau_{\rm IR}$ are
133: chosen such that
134: \begin{eqnarray}
135: \delta\tau_{\rm G} ||F_{\rm G}|| \approx \delta\tau_{\rm UV} ||F_{\rm UV}|| \approx \delta\tau_{\rm IR} ||F_{\rm IR}||.
136: \end{eqnarray}
137: These step sizes are controlled by three integers $N_0, N_1, N_2$ as
138: $\delta\tau_{\rm G}=\tau/N_0 N_1 N_2, \delta\tau_{\rm UV}=\tau/N_1
139: N_2,$ $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}=\tau/N_2$ with $\tau$ the trajectory length.
140: We fix $N_0=N_1=4$ in our all simulations. The value of $N_2$ is
141: adjusted to make the simulation stable.
142: The threshold for the replay trick is chosen to be $dH=2$.
143: For the strange quark we employ the UVPHMC algorithm, where the domain-deconposition is not used.
144: The polynomial order $N_{\rm poly}$ for the UVPHMC algorithm
145: is adjusted to keep high acceptance rate for the global Metropolis test
146: at the end of each trajectory.
147: Based on our observation of $||F_{\rm s}||\approx ||F_{\rm IR}||$
148: for the strange quark force,
149: we set $\delta\tau_{\rm s}=\delta\tau_{\rm IR}$.
150: Calclation of the IR force requires
151: the inversion of the Wilson-Dirac operator on
152: the full lattice, which is carried out by the SAP (Schwarz alternative
153: procedure) preconditioned GCR algorithm. We use
154: the SSOR preconditioned GCR algorithm for the UV part.
155: These preconditionings are accelerated with the single precision
156: arithmetic. We employ the stopping condition $|Dx-b|/|b|<10^{-9}$
157: for the force calculation and $10^{-14}$ for the Hamiltonian, which
158: guarantees the reversibility of the molecular dynamics trajectories
159: to high precision.
160: The DDHMC algorithm for the up-down quark works efficiently
161: for $\kappa_{\rm ud}\le 0.13770$.
162:
163: \begin{table}[t!]
164: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
165: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
166: \centering
167: \caption{Summary of simulation parameters. Quark masses are
168: perturbatively renormalized in the $\msbar$ scheme at the scale of $\mu=1/a$.
169: The replay trick is applied for the case of $dH>2$.
170: MD time is the number of trajectories multiplied by the trajectory
171: length $\tau$. CPU time for unit $\tau$ is measured on 256 nodes of
172: the PACS-CS computer.}
173: \label{tab:param}
174: \begin{tabular}{lllllll | l} \hline
175: $\kappa_{\rm ud}$ & 0.13700 & {0.13727} & 0.13754 & 0.13754
176: & {0.13770} & {0.13781} & 0.137785\\
177: $\kappa_{\rm s}$ & 0.13640 & {0.13640} & 0.13640 & 0.13660
178: & {0.13640} & {0.13640} & 0.13660\\ \hline
179: HMC & DD & DD & DD & DD & DD & MP & MP2 \\
180: $\tau$ & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.5 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25\\
181: $(N_0,N_1,N_2,N_3,N_{4})$ & (4,4,10) & (4,4,14) & (4,4,20) & (4,4,28) & (4,4,16) & (4,4,4,6) &(4,4,2,4,4)\\
182: & & & & & & (4,4,6,6) & \\
183: $\rho_1$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & 0.9995 & 0.9995\\
184: $\rho_2$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & $-$ & 0.9990\\
185: $N_{\rm poly}$ & 180 & 180 & 180 & 220 & 180 & 200 & 220 \\
186: replay trick & on & on & on & on & on & off & off \\
187: rate of $dH>2$ & 0\% & 0.08\% & 0.5\% & 0.1\% & 3\% & 2.8\% & 0.9\% \\
188: MD time & 2000 & 2000 & 2250 & 2000 & 2000 & 990 & 950\\
189: CPU time [hrs] & 0.29 & 0.44 & 1.3 & 1.1 & 2.7 & 7.1 & 6.0\\
190: %\hline
191: $m_{\rm ud}^{\overline{MS}}$ [MeV] & 66.8(7) & 45.3(5) & 24.0(3) &
192: 21.0(3) & 12.3(2) & 3.5(2) & 3.5(1) \\
193: $m_{\pi}$ [MeV] & 702(7) & 570(6) & 411(4) & 385(4) & 296(3) & 156(2) & 164(4) \\ \hline
194: \end{tabular}
195: \end{table}
196:
197:
198: As we reduce the up-down quark mass, the increasing fluctuations of
199: the $||F_{\rm IR}||$ make the simulation unstable.
200: To suppress the fluctuations of $||F_{\rm IR}||$,
201: we incorporate the mass preconditioning for the IR part (MPDDHMC),
202: which splits the IR force $F_{\rm IR}$ into $F_{\rm
203: IR}^{\prime}$ and $\tilde{F}_{\rm IR}$ by introducing
204: a new hopping parameter
205: $\kappa^{\prime}_{\rm ud}=\rho_1\kappa_{\rm ud}$ with $\rho_1$ less than
206: unity. In the MPDDHMC algorithm we need four integers $(N_0, N_1, N_2,
207: N_3)$ to controll the four step sizes $\delta\tau_{\rm G},
208: \delta\tau_{\rm UV}, \delta\tau_{\rm IR}^{\prime}, \delta\tilde\tau_{\rm
209: {IR}}$. $N_2, N_3$ and $\rho_1$ are adjusted to reduce
210: the fluctuations of $||F^{\prime}_{\rm IR}||$ and $||\tilde{F}_{\rm IR}||$.
211: We choose $\delta\tau_{\rm s}=\delta\tau_{\rm IR}^{\prime}$
212: for the strange quark force in the UVPHMC algorithm.
213:
214:
215: For the run at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.137785$ further
216: mass preconditioning is applied to the shifted IR force $F^{\prime}_{\rm IR}$,
217: which is divided into $F_{\rm IR}^{\prime\prime}$ and
218: $\tilde{F}^{\prime}_{\rm IR}$ using an additional hopping parameter
219: $\kappa^{\prime\prime}_{\rm ud}=\rho_2\kappa^{\prime}_{\rm
220: ud}=\rho_2\rho_1\kappa_{\rm ud}$ with
221: $\rho_2$ less than unity.
222: We refer to this algorithm as MP2DDHMC because of two-level of
223: mass preconditioning.
224: In this case five step sizes $\delta\tau_{\rm G}, \delta\tau_{\rm UV},
225: \delta\tau_{\rm IR}^{\prime\prime}, \delta\tilde\tau^{\prime}_{\rm IR},
226: \delta\tilde\tau_{\rm {IR}}$ are controlled by five integers $(N_0, N_1,
227: N_2, N_3, N_4)$.
228: We adjust the values of $N_2, N_3, N_4$ and $\rho_1, \rho_2$ to keep stable
229: the fluctuations of $||F^{\prime\prime}_{\rm IR}||, ||\tilde{F}^{\prime}_{\rm IR}||, ||\tilde{F}_{\rm IR}||$.
230: $\delta\tau_{\rm s}$ is equal to $\delta\tau_{\rm IR}^{\prime\prime}$.
231: %The physics results at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.137785$ are given in Ref.~\\}
232:
233: For the MPDDHMC and the MP2DDHMC algorithms
234: the inversion of the Wilson-Dirac operator on
235: the full lattice is composed of three steps.
236: Firstly, we prepare the initial solutions employing
237: the chronological guess with the last 16 solutions.
238: Secondly, we apply a nested BiCGStab solver consisting of
239: the outer solver and the inner one. The latter with single precision
240: arithmetic works as a preconditioner for the former operated
241: with double precision.
242: We employ a stringent stopping condition
243: $|Dx-b|/|b|<10^{-14}$ for the outer solver and
244: an automatic tolerance control ranging from $10^{-3}$ to $10^{-6}$
245: for the inner solver.
246: Thirdly, the nested BiCGStab solver is replaced by the GCRO-DR
247: (Generalized Conjugate Residual with implicit inner Orthogonalization
248: and Deflated Restarting) algorithm, once the inner BiCGStab solver
249: becomes stagnant during the inversion of the Wilson-Dirac operator.
250:
251: %%%
252: %%% dH and force history
253: %%%
254: %\section{dH and force histories}
255:
256: In Figs.~\ref{fig:dH} and \ref{fig:F} we show the $dH$ and the force
257: histories at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13727$ and 0.13770 with the DDHMC algorithm
258: and those at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ with the MPDDHMC algorithm.
259: The time histories at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13727$ are quite stable, whereas
260: the $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13770$ case shows the spike-like fluctuations
261: of the IR force at a few \% rate of trajectries.
262: For the $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ run
263: we observe that the MPDDHMC algorithm succeeds in reducing the
264: fluctuations of the IR forces $F_{\rm IR}^{\prime}$ and $\tilde{F}_{\rm IR}$.
265:
266: \begin{figure}[b]
267: \vspace{3mm}
268: \begin{center}
269: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
270: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/dH13727.eps} &
271: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/dH13770.eps} &
272: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/dH13781.eps}
273: \end{tabular}
274: \end{center}
275: \vspace{-.5cm}
276: \caption{$dH$ histories for $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=$(0.13727,0.13640), (0.13770,0.13640) and (0.13781,0.13640) from the left.}
277: \label{fig:dH}
278: \end{figure}
279:
280: \begin{figure}[b]
281: \vspace{3mm}
282: \begin{center}
283: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
284: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/F13727.eps} &
285: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/F13770.eps} &
286: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/F13781.eps}
287: \end{tabular}
288: \end{center}
289: \vspace{-.5cm}
290: \caption{Force histories for $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=$(0.13727,0.13640), (0.13770,0.13640) and (0.13781,0.13640) from the left.
291: In the left and middle figures black, red and green lines
292: denote $F_{\rm G}$, $F_{\rm UV}$ and
293: $F_{\rm IR}$, respectively, with the DDHMC algorithm,
294: In the right figure black, red, green and blue lines are for
295: $F_{\rm G}$, $F_{\rm UV}$, $F_{\rm IR}^{\prime}$ and $\tilde{F}_{\rm IR}$,
296: respectively, with the MPDDHMC algorithm.}
297: \label{fig:F}
298: \end{figure}
299:
300:
301: %\clearpage
302: %%%
303: %%% Hadron spectrum
304: %%%
305: \section{Hadron spectrum}
306: We measure hadron correlators at ever 10 trajectories for
307: $\kappa_{\rm ud}\le 13770$ and 20 trajectories for $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 13781$.
308: Light hadron masses are extracted from single exponential
309: $\chi^2$ fits to the correlators
310: with an exponentially smeared source and a local sink.
311: In order to increase the statistics we take four source points with
312: different time slices for $\kappa_{\rm ud}\ge 0.13754$.
313: They are averaged on each configuration before the jackknife analysis.
314: This reduces the statistical errors by typically 20--40\% for
315: the vector meson and the baryon masses and less than 20\%
316: for the pseudoscalar meson masses compared to a single source point.
317: Statistical errors are estimated by the jackknife method.
318: Figure~\ref{fig:binsize} shows the binsize dependence of
319: the error for the pion mass and the ``$\eta_{ss}$'' meson mass.
320: We observe that the magnitude of the error reaches
321: a plateau after 100--200 MD time. This feature seems almost independent of
322: the quark mass.
323: Since similar binsize dependences are found for other particle types, we
324: choose a binsize of 250 MD time at $\kappa_{\rm ud}<0.13770$.
325: At $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ we employ a binsize of 110 MD time
326: due to the lack of statistics.
327:
328: \begin{figure}[b]
329: \vspace{3mm}
330: \begin{center}
331: \begin{tabular}{cc}
332: \includegraphics[width=55mm,angle=0]{FIG/binerr_pi.eps} &
333: \includegraphics[width=55mm,angle=0]{FIG/binerr_eta.eps}
334: \end{tabular}
335: \end{center}
336: \vspace{-.5cm}
337: \caption{Binsize dependence of the magnitude of error for $m_{\pi}$ (left) and $m_{\eta_{\rm ss}}$ (right)
338: at $\kappa_{\rm ud} \ge 0.13754$}
339: \label{fig:binsize}
340: \end{figure}
341:
342:
343:
344: \begin{figure}[b!]
345: \vspace{3mm}
346: \begin{center}
347: \begin{tabular}{ccc}
348: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/msn_13727.eps} &
349: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/msn_13770.eps} &
350: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/msn_13781.eps} \\
351: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/brn_13727.eps} &
352: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/brn_13770.eps} &
353: \includegraphics[width=50mm,angle=0]{FIG/brn_13781.eps}
354: \end{tabular}
355: \end{center}
356: \vspace{-.5cm}
357: \caption{Effective masses for the mesons (top) and the baryons (bottom) for $(\kappa_{\rm ud},\kappa_{\rm s})=$(0.13727,0.13640), (0.13770,0.13640) and (0.13781,0.13640) from the left.}
358: \label{fig:Meff}
359: \end{figure}
360:
361: Figure~\ref{fig:Meff} shows the hadron effective masses
362: at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13727, 0.13770$ and
363: $0.13781$. We observe clear plateau for the mesons except the $\rho$
364: meson at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.13781$ and also good signal
365: for the baryons thanks to a large volume.
366: Especially, the $\Omega$ baryon has a stable signal
367: and a weak up-down quark mass dependence for our simulation parameters.
368: Taking advantage of this virtue we choose the
369: $\Omega$ baryon as input to determine the lattice cutoff.
370: Combined with the additional inputs of $m_\pi$ and $m_K$ to determine
371: the physical up-down and strange quark masses,
372: we obtain $a^{-1}=2.176(31)$ GeV.
373: In this procedure we employ the SU(2) ChPT analyses
374: for the quark mass dependences
375: of $m_\pi$, $m_K$, $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ taking account of the finite
376: size corrections evaluated at the one-loop level\cite{pacscs,kadoh}.
377: For $m_\Omega$ we assume the linear quark mass depenedences.
378: With the use of this cutoff we find that the lightest
379: pseudoscalar meson mass we have reached is about 160 MeV.
380: %We employ the SU(2) ChPT analyses for the quark mass dependences
381: %of $m_\pi$, $m_K$, $f_\pi$ and $f_K$ taking account of the finite
382: %size corrections evaluated at the one-loop level. The details are given
383: %in Refs.~\cite{pacscs,kadoh}.
384: To obtain the vector meson masses and the baryon masses
385: at the physical point
386: we avoid the chiral analyses based on the heavy meson effective theory
387: or the heavy baryon ChPT
388: because of their poor convergences in the chiral expansions.
389: We instead use linear chiral extraporations to the physical point.
390: In Fig.~\ref{fig:hyo} we compare the light hadron spectrum
391: at the physical point with the experimental values.
392: The largest discrepancy is at most 3\%, albeit errors are still not small for the $\rho$ meson, the nucleon and the $\Delta$ baryon.
393: It should be also noted that our results contain
394: possible $O((a\Lambda_{\rm QCD})^2)$ cutoff errors.
395: %In Fig.~\ref{fig:hyo} we also plot the preliminary results at $(\kappa_{ud}, \kappa_{\rm s})=(0.137785, 0.13660)$ as the physical point estimated from our results in a early stage\cite{pacscs}.
396: %Almost every hadron masses are still heavier than those extrapolated to the physical point and the experimental values. For the precise comparison, we need more detailed studies with increased statistics.
397: %A more detailed description about the determination of $a^{-1}$ and the
398: %chiral extrapolation of the hadron masses is given in Ref.~\cite{kadoh}.
399:
400: \begin{figure}[t]
401: \vspace{3mm}
402: \begin{center}
403: \begin{tabular}{c}
404: \includegraphics[width=60mm,angle=0]{FIG/hyo.eps}
405: \end{tabular}
406: \end{center}
407: \vspace{-.5cm}
408: \caption{Light hadron spectrum extrapolated to the physical point (red
409: circles) in comparison with the experimental values (black bars).}
410: \label{fig:hyo}
411: \end{figure}
412:
413: We calculate the bare quark masses using the axial vector
414: Ward-Takahashi identity (AWI) defined by
415: $am^{\rm AWI}=\lim_{t\rightarrow \infty}
416: {\langle \nabla_4A_4^{\rm imp}(t)P(0) \rangle}/(2\langle P(t)P(0)\rangle)$
417: where $A_4^{\rm imp}$ is the nonperturbatively
418: $O(a)$-improved axial vector current\cite{A4I}.
419: Employing the perturbative renormalization factors $Z_A$ and $Z_P$
420: evaluated up to one-loop level \cite{Z1, Z2}, we obtain
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: m_{\rm ud}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu=2{\rm GeV})=2.527(47){\rm MeV},&&
423: m_{\rm s}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu=2{\rm GeV})=72.72(78){\rm MeV}.
424: \end{eqnarray}
425: The physical up-down quark mass is 30\% smaller than
426: our lightest one $m_{\rm ud}^{\overline{\rm MS}}(\mu=1/a)=3.5$ MeV
427: at $(\kappa_{\rm ud}, \kappa_{\rm s})=(0.13781, 0.13640)$.
428: The results for the pseudoscalar meson decay constants are given by
429: \begin{eqnarray}
430: f_\pi=134.0(4.2){\rm MeV}, \ \ & f_K=159.4(3.1){\rm MeV}, \ \ & f_K/f_{\pi}=1.189(20)
431: \end{eqnarray}
432: at the physical point with the perturbative $Z_A$.
433: They are consistent with the experimental values within the errors.
434: Our concern about the values for the quark masses and the pseudoscalar
435: meson decay constants is the use of the perturbative renormalization factors
436: which might cause sizable systematic errors.
437: We are now calculating the nonperturbative $Z_A$ and $Z_P$ with the
438: Schr{\"o}dinger functional scheme.
439: %Table~2 lists the quark masses and the decay constants.
440:
441: %\clearpage
442: %%%
443: %%% Acknowledgments
444: %%%
445: \begin{acknowledgments}
446: Numerical calculations for the present work have been carried out
447: on the PACS-CS computer
448: at Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba.
449: A part of the code development has been carried out on Hitachi SR11000
450: at Information Media Center of Hiroshima University.
451: This work is supported in part by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research
452: from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
453: (Nos.
454: 16740147, %Ishikawa
455: 17340066, %Kanaya
456: 18104005, %Ukawa
457: 18540250, %Kuramashi
458: 18740130, %Taniguchi
459: 19740134, %Izubuchi
460: 20340047, %Aoki
461: 20540248, %Ishizuka
462: 20740123, %Ukita
463: 20740139 %Ishikawa
464: ).
465: \end{acknowledgments}
466:
467: %%%
468: %%% References
469: %%%
470: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
471: \bibitem{aoki}
472: PACS-CS Collaboration, S. Aoki {\it et al.}, PoS (LAT2005) 111.
473:
474: \bibitem{ukawa}
475: PACS-CS Collaboration, A. Ukawa {\it et al.}, PoS (LAT2006) 039.
476:
477: \bibitem{kuramashi}
478: PACS-CS Collaboration, Y. Kuramashi {\it et al.}, PoS (LAT2006) 029.
479:
480: \bibitem{kuramashi2}
481: Y. Kuramashi, PoS (LAT2007) 017.
482:
483: \bibitem{ukita}
484: PACS-CS Collaboration, N. Ukita {\it et al.}, PoS (LAT2007) 138.
485:
486: \bibitem{kadoh2}
487: PACS-CS Collaboration, D. Kadoh {\it et al.} PoS (LAT2007) 109.
488:
489: \bibitem{kuramashi3}
490: Y. Kuramashi, these proceedings.
491:
492: \bibitem{pacscs}
493: S.~Aoki {\it et al.}, arXiv:0807.1661 [hep-lat].
494:
495: \bibitem{luscher}
496: M. L\"uscher, JHEP {\bf 0305} (2003) 052; Comput. Phys. Commun. {\bf 156} (2004) 209;
497: {\it ibid.} {\bf 165} (2005) 199.
498:
499: \bibitem{kennedy}
500: A.~Kennedy, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B} (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 140} (2005) 190.
501:
502: \bibitem{hasenbusch}
503: M.~Hasenbusch, Phys.~Lett.~{\bf B519} (2001) 177.
504:
505: \bibitem{hasenbusch2}
506: M.~Hasenbusch and K.~Jansen, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B659} (2003) 299.
507:
508: \bibitem{brower}
509: R.~Brower, T.~Ivanenko, A.~Levi and K.~Orginos, Nucl.~Phys.~{\bf B484} (1997) 353.
510:
511: \bibitem{parks}
512: M.~Parks {\it et al.}, SIAM J. Sci. Comput. {\bf 28} (2006) 1651.
513:
514: \bibitem{ishikawa}
515: PACS-CS Collaboration, K-I. Ishikawa {\it et al.}, PoS (LAT2006) 027.
516:
517: \bibitem{kadoh}
518: PACS-CS Collaboration, D.~Kadoh {\it et al.}, these proceedings.
519:
520: \bibitem{namekawa}
521: PACS-CS Collaboration, Y. Namekawa {\it et al.}, these proceedings.
522:
523: \bibitem{csw}
524: CP-PACS and JLQCD Collaborations, S.~Aoki {\it et al.}, Phys.~Rev.~{\bf D73} (2006) 034501.
525:
526: \bibitem{iwasaki}
527: Y. Iwasaki, preprint, UTHEP-118 (Dec. 1983), unpublished.
528:
529: \bibitem{cppacs/jlqcd1}
530: CP-PACS and JLQCD Collaborations, T. Ishikawa {\it et al.}, PoS (LAT2006) 181.
531:
532: \bibitem{cppacs/jlqcd2}
533: CP-PACS and JLQCD Collaborations, T. Ishikawa {\it et al.}, hep-lat/0704.193.
534:
535: \bibitem{sexton}
536: J.~C.~Sexton and D.~H.~Weingarten, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B380} (1992) 665.
537:
538: \bibitem{A4I}
539: CP-PACS/JLQCD and ALPHA Collaborations, T. Kaneko {\it et al.}, JHEP
540: {\bf 0704} (2007) 092.
541:
542: \bibitem{Z1}
543: S. Aoki {\it et al.}, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58}, (1998) 074505.
544:
545: \bibitem{Z2}
546: Y. Taniguchi and A. Ukawa, Phys. Rev. {\bf D58} 114503 (1998).
547:
548: \end{thebibliography}
549:
550: \end{document}
551:
552:
553:
554:
555:
556:
557: \begin{table}[t]
558: \begin{center}
559: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{6pt}
560: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
561: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc} \hline
562: & ChPT & experiment & $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.137785$ \\ \hline
563: $m_{\rm ud}^{\overline{MS}}$ [MeV] & 2.53(5) & $-$ & 3.5(3) \\
564: $m_{\rm s}^{\overline{MS}}$ [MeV] & 72.7(8) & $-$ & 73.4(2) \\
565: $f_{\pi}$ [MeV] & 134.0(4.2) & $130.7\pm0.1\pm0.36$ & 129.0(5.4) \\
566: $f_{K}$ [MeV] & 159.4(3.1) & $159.8\pm1.4\pm0.44$ & 160.6(1.4) \\ \hline
567: \end{tabular}
568: \caption{Chpt results extrapolated to physical point and experimental values and results at $\kappa_{\rm ud}=0.137785$ for the quark masses and the decay constants.}
569: \end{center}
570: \end{table}
571: