1: \section{A test-study of lattice tmQCD with light quarks and in large volume}
2:
3: We present here some preliminary results of a high-statistics
4: exploratory study of lattice tmQCD in the thermodynamic chiral
5: regime. The study aimed at testing the absence of exceptional
6: configurations, the computational cost and the magnitude of
7: cutoff effects for a few typical observables. We adopt in the following
8: the notation
9: of Ref.~\cite{paper3}, to the equations of which we refer
10: with the prefix "I", and postpone
11: many technical details to a forthcoming publication \cite{paper4}.
12:
13: \subsection{Observables and simulations}
14: In this test-study we choose to work in the quark basis of
15: action~(\ref{Wils_tm_act1}) and
16: implement the {\em non-perturbative} O($a$) improvement of the action and the
17: relevant operators along the lines of Ref.~\cite{paper2}.
18: Attention is restricted to the pseudoscalar and vector meson
19: masses, $M_{\rm PS}$ and $M_{\rm V}$, the pseudoscalar (leptonic) decay constant,
20: $F_{\rm PS}$, and the polar quark masses, $M_\rmR$ and $\alpha$, which
21: are defined according to eqs.~(I.3.3)--(I.3.20) for $\mur$ and $\mr$
22: and eq.~(\ref{polar_mass}).
23:
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %%\TABLE{
26: \begin{table}[htb]
27: \vspace{0.25cm}
28: \begin{center}
29: \begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
30: \hline
31: \small
32: $\!\!\!\!$Set, $\beta$ & $\!\!L/a$, $T/L$ & $\!\!N_{\rm meas}$ & $m_\rmR/M_\rmR$ & $M_{\rm R} r_0$ & $M_{\rm PS}r_0$ & $F_{\rm PS}r_0$ & $M_{\rm V}r_0$ \\
33: \hline
34: $\!\!\!\!$A1, 6.0 & 16, 2 & $\!\!$650 & $-$0.016(3) & 0.2729(15) & 1.711(7) & 0.455(5) & 2.662(40) \\
35: $\!\!\!\!$A1',6.0 & 16, 3 & $\!\!$650 & $-$0.016(3) & 0.2729(15) & 1.714(6) & 0.455(6) & 2.656(42) \\
36: $\!\!\!\!$A2, 6.2 & 24, 2 & $\!\!$535 & $-$0.014(2) & 0.2558(16) & 1.623(8) & 0.456(5) & 2.557(32) \\
37: $\!\!\!\!$B1L, 6.0 & 24, 2 & $\!\!$260 & 0.017(3) & 0.1949(11) & 1.452(6) & 0.432(6) & 2.517(35) \\
38: $\!\!\!\!$B1, 6.0 & 16, 2 & $\!\!$535 & 0.001(3) & 0.1949(11) & 1.455(8) & 0.428(5) & 2.513(47) \\
39: $\!\!\!\!$B2, 6.2 & 24, 2 & $\!\!$300 & $-$0.004(4) & 0.1962(12) & 1.420(9) & 0.436(7) & 2.462(41) \\
40: $\!\!\!\!$C, 6.0 & 24, 2 & $\!\!$260 & 0.083(5) & 0.1205(7) & 1.160(6) & 0.401(6) & 2.485(59) \\
41:
42: \hline
43: \end{tabular}
44: \caption{Statistics and renormalized quantities obtained in our simulations,
45: which are identified by a label and the value of $\beta=6/g_0^2$.
46: The statistics is specified by the number of measurements,
47: $N_{\rm meas}$, on almost independent gauge configurations, while the values
48: of $m_0$ and $\muq$ can be found in Ref.~[20].}
49: %%%\cite{paper4}.}
50: \label{tab1}
51: \end{center}
52: \end{table}
53: %
54: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
55:
56: We work in the {\em quenched} approximation considering systems of physical
57: size $L^3 T$ with $L$ such that $M_{\rm PS}L \geq 4.5$ to suppress
58: finite volume effects. In practice we take $L=1.5$~fm or $L=2.2$~fm and
59: $T/L=2 \div 3$.
60: Following Ref.~\cite{paper3}, we impose boundary conditions of
61: Schr\"odinger functional \makebox{(SF)} type and compute the SF correlators
62: \be
63: \fa^{11}(x_0)\, , \quad \fp^{11}(x_0)\, , \quad
64: \fv^{12}(x_0)\, , \quad
65: \kv^{11}(x_0)\, , \quad \kt^{11}(x_0)\, ,\quad
66: \ka^{12}(x_0)\, , \quad f_1^{11} \; .
67: \ee
68: We hence construct the linear combinations of renormalized and O($a$) improved
69: SF correlators that correspond to operator insertions (at time $x_0$) with
70: well defined continuum quantum numbers, see eqs.~(I.3.10)--(I.3.11)
71: with $\alpha$ given by eq.~(\ref{polar_mass}). Namely, the correlators
72: $[\fap^{11}]_{\hbox{\sixrm R}}(x_0)$ and $[\fpp^{11}]_{\hbox{\sixrm R}}(x_0)$
73: correspond to the insertion of the isotriplet pseudoscalar operators
74: $(A'_{\rmR})^1_0$ and $(P'_{\rmR})^1$, while the correlators
75: $[\kvp^{11}]_{\hbox{\sixrm R}}(x_0)$ and $[\ktp^{11}]_{\hbox{\sixrm R}}(x_0)$
76: correspond to the insertion of the isotriplet vector operators
77: $(V'_{\rmR})^1_k$ and $(T'_{\rmR})^1_{k0}$.
78: In the limit of large $x_0$ and large $(T-x_0)$ and up to cutoff effects,
79: these non-vanishing correlators are expected to be dominated by the lowest
80: isotriplet pseudoscalar and vector meson states.
81:
82: %%\EPSFIGURE
83: \begin{figure}[htb]
84: \begin{center}
85: \epsfig{file=fp24_conv.eps,width=6.0cm,angle=-90}
86: \caption{
87: The square root of the relative a priori variance of $f=\fp^{11}(x_0=24a)$
88: versus the number of measurements $N$: data from the simulation C
89: (filled symbols) and another simulation with the same values of
90: $\beta$ and $M_\rmR$, but $\alpha=0$ (open symbols).
91: }
92: \label{fig_fP24}
93: \end{center}
94: \end{figure}
95: %%}
96:
97:
98: An overview of our simulation parameters, statistics and preliminary results
99: for renormalized quantities is given in Table~1. The renormalized gauge
100: coupling $g^2_\rmR$ is eliminated in favour of the length scale $r_0$
101: \cite{sommer_r_0}, which is known to be about 0.5~fm, while the lattice
102: spacing value corresponding to $\beta= 6 \; (6.2)$ is
103: $a \sim 0.093 \; (0.068)$~fm.
104: Our most critical simulation (set C, $\beta=6$),
105: where we employed a CGNE solver
106: for the SSOR-preconditioned version of the
107: Dirac matrix $(D_{\rm W, c} +\mq +i\muq\gamma_5\tau^3 )$, required
108: $\sim 230$~GFlops~$\times$~day.
109:
110: %%\FIGURE{
111: \begin{figure}[htb]
112: \begin{center}
113: \hspace{-1.5cm}\epsfig{file=Fig5.eps,width=7.5cm,angle=-90}
114: \caption{
115: Pseudoscalar effective masses extracted from the correlators
116: $[\fp]_\rmR \equiv [\fpp^{11}]_\rmR$ and
117: $[\fap]_\rmR \equiv [\fap^{11}]_\rmR$ for the simulation C.
118: The tiny circles denote our (good) fit to
119: the effective masses from $[\fap]_\rmR$:
120: at large $x_0$ a peculiar O($a\muq$) contribution is present.
121: }
122: \label{fig_meff}
123: \end{center}
124: \end{figure}
125: %%}
126:
127: %\DOUBLEFIGURE
128: %{fp24_conv.eps,width=4.0cm,angle=-90}
129: %{Fig5.eps,width=3.5cm,angle=-90}
130: %{
131: %The square root of the relative a priori variance of $f=\fp^{11}(x_0=24a)$
132: %versus the number of measurements $N$: data from the simulation C
133: %(filled symbols) and another simulation with the same values of
134: %$\beta$ and $M_\rmR$, but $\alpha=0$ (open symbols).
135: %\label{fig_fP24}
136: %}
137: %{
138: %Pseudoscalar effective masses extracted from the correlators
139: %$[\fpp^{11}]_\rmR$ and $[\fap^{11}]_\rmR$ for the simulation C.
140: %The tiny black circles denote our (good) fit to
141: %the effective masses from $[\fap^{11}]_\rmR$:
142: %at large $x_0$ a peculiar O($a\muq$) contribution is present.
143: %\label{fig_meff}
144: %}
145:
146:
147: \subsection{Results}
148:
149: We find that lattice tmQCD
150: allows, as expected, to safely work in a region
151: of parameters which would be inaccessible
152: with ordinary Wilson quarks: see e.g. Fig.~\ref{fig_fP24} as
153: well as the findings of Ref.~\cite{UK_tmQCD}.
154: For a given number of independent measurements, the statistical errors on
155: $M_{\rm PS}$ and $M_{\rm V}$ are comparable, up to a factor of one to three,
156: to those
157: found e.g. with domain wall quarks \cite{CPPACS_B_K}. The CPU time
158: effort, e.g. for the data sets A1, A1' and A2, is in line with
159: the computational cost for ordinary Wilson quarks.
160:
161: %\DOUBLEFIGURE
162: %{Mpi_pro.eps,width=4.2cm,angle=-90}
163: %{Fpi_pro.eps,width=4.05cm,angle=-90}
164: %{
165: %$( M_{\rm PS} r_0 )^2$ versus $M_\rmR r_0$ from
166: %\mbox{tmQCD} and reanalysis of the data of
167: %\mbox{Ref.~\cite{garden}}, including a
168: %continuum extrapolation (c. l.).
169: %%\label{fig_chir1}
170: %}
171: %{
172: %The analogous of Fig.~3 for $F_{\rm PS} r_0$.
173: %Symbols are the same as specified in the legenda of Fig.~3.
174: %%\label{fig_chir2}
175: %}
176:
177: %%\FIGURE{
178: \begin{figure}[htb]
179: \begin{center}
180: \epsfig{file=Mpi_pro.eps,width=7.8cm,angle=-90}
181: \caption{
182: $( M_{\rm PS} r_0 )^2$ versus $M_\rmR r_0$ from
183: \mbox{tmQCD} and reanalysis of the data of
184: %%%\mbox{Ref.~\cite{garden}}, including a
185: \mbox{Ref.~[23]}, including a
186: continuum extrapolation (c. l.).
187: }
188: \label{fig_chir1}
189: \end{center}
190: \end{figure}
191: %%}
192:
193:
194: The partial breaking of parity and isospin that is peculiar of
195: lattice tmQCD is found to be a minor problem within our small
196: statistical errors. In this respect it should be noted that we work
197: at small values of $a\muq$, namely
198: $0.0266 \geq a\muq \geq 0.0117$, and consider observables in
199: physical channels where the lowest state is lighter than the lowest
200: state of the corresponding channels with flipped parity and isospin.
201: While deferring the details of our analysis to Ref.~\cite{paper4}, we
202: show in Fig.~\ref{fig_meff} an example of effective masses extracted
203: from SF correlators, where the correlator $[\fap^{11}]_\rmR(x_0)$
204: receives contributions of order $a\muq$ that are visible at large $x_0$.
205: Analogous effects are expected and found to be negligible within
206: statistical errors for both $[\fpp^{11}]_\rmR(x_0)$ and the
207: vector channel correlators.
208:
209: As detailed in Refs.~\cite{paper2,FS01}, we expect the relations among
210: our observables and the renormalized parameters
211: $r_0$ and $M_\rmR$ to be O($a$) improved.
212: In particular, when working at $\alpha = \pi/2 + {\rm O}(a)$,
213: which is the case of our study, the knowledge of
214: a few counterterms (those with coefficients $\zg$,
215: $\mc$ and $\csw$) suffices to obtain
216: an O($a$) improved estimate of $F_{\rm PS}$.
217: In order to check for the residual scaling violations, we produced data
218: at $\beta=6.2$ (sets A2 and B2), while keeping $\alpha$, $M_\rmR$
219: and $r_0$ fixed. The small mismatch in $M_\rmR r_0$ for the set A2
220: was corrected by employing estimates of the dependence
221: of our observables on $M_\rmR r_0$.
222:
223: %%\FIGURE{
224: \begin{figure}[htb]
225: \begin{center}
226: \epsfig{file=Fpi_pro.eps,width=7.6cm,angle=-90}
227: \caption{
228: The analogous of Fig.~3 for $F_{\rm PS} r_0$.
229: Symbols are the same as in the legenda of Fig.~3.
230: }
231: \end{center}
232: \label{fig_chir2}
233: \end{figure}
234: %%}
235:
236: We also reanalysed the data of Ref.~\cite{garden}, which were
237: produced at $\beta=6,6.1,6.2,6.45$, by imposing precisely the same
238: renormalization conditions as in this study of tmQCD. We then
239: performed a continuum extrapolation of these data, assuming a purely quadratic
240: dependence on $(a/r_0)^2$ and discarding the data at $\beta=6$.
241: However, the resulting estimate of $F_{\rm PS}$ is not fully O($a$) improved,
242: as for one of the necessary improvement coefficients, $\ba(g_0^2)$, only the
243: one-loop estimate could be used.
244: The outcome of this exercise is compared with the results from tmQCD
245: in Figs.~3--4,
246: %%%in Figs.~\ref{fig_chir1}--\ref{fig_chir2},
247: omitting the case of $M_{\rm V} r_0$ where
248: cutoff effects are hardly visible within statistical errors. The
249: estimators of $M_{\rm PS}$ and $F_{\rm PS}$ that are obtained from
250: lattice tmQCD show rather small cutoff effects, which agrees
251: with the findings of a scaling test \cite{paper3} in intermediate
252: volume ($L=0.75$~fm).
253:
254:
255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
256: