1: \section{Overview of Numerical Techniques}
2: \label{sec:mc}
3:
4: This section gives a brief overview the numerical methods.
5: These are covered in more detail in some of the texts, reviews, and
6: summer schools cited above, as well as in a set of lecture notes aimed
7: at experimenters.\cite{DiPierro:2000nt}
8:
9: The foremost issue is that there are very many variables.
10: Continuum field theory has uncountably many degrees of freedom.
11: Field theory on an infinite lattice still has an infinite number of
12: degrees of freedom, but the infinity is now countable, {\em i.e.}, it
13: is as infinite as the integers.
14: This makes the products over $x$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:funcint})
15: well-defined.
16: For a computer (with finite memory), the number of degrees of freedom
17: must be kept finite.
18: To do so, one must also introduce a finite spacetime volume.
19: This may seem alarming, but what one has done is simply to introduce an
20: ultraviolet cutoff (the lattice) and an infrared cutoff (the finite
21: volume).
22: All calculations in QCD, except trivial ones, require an ultraviolet
23: cutoff, and many require an infrared cutoff, although physical
24: predictions are cutoff independent.
25: In a sense, removal of the cutoffs is the subject of
26: Secs.~\ref{sec:sym} and~\ref{sec:volume}.
27:
28: Even with a finite lattice, the number of integration variables is
29: large.
30: For QCD on a $N_S^3\times N_4$ lattice (cf.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:lat}) there
31: are $(4\times8)N_S^3N_4$ variables for gluons
32: and $(4\times3)N_S^3N_4$ for quarks.
33: If one only demands a volume a few times the size of a hadron and also
34: several grid points within a hadron's diameter, one already requires
35: at least, say, 10 points along each direction.
36: In four-dimensional spacetime this leads to $\sim 32\times 10^4$ gluonic
37: variables.
38:
39: With so many variables, the only feasible methods are based on Monte
40: Carlo integration.
41: The basic idea of Monte Carlo integration is simple: generate an
42: ensemble of random variables and approximate the integrals in
43: Eq.~(\ref{eq:funcint}) by ensemble averages.
44: Thus, calling all variables~$\phi$,
45: \begin{equation}
46: \langle O_1\cdots O_n\rangle = \frac{1}{Z} \sum_{z=1}^{N_Z}
47: w(\phi^{(z)}) O_1(\phi^{(z)})\cdots O_n(\phi^{(z)})
48: \label{eq:ensemble}
49: \end{equation}
50: with weights~$w$ to be specified below,
51: and $Z$ defined so that $\langle1\rangle=1$.
52:
53: Quarks pose special problems, principally because, to implement Fermi
54: statistics, fermionic variables are Grassmann numbers.
55: In all cases of interest, the quark action can be written
56: \begin{equation}
57: S_{\rm q} = -\sum_x{\cal L}_{\rm q}(x) = \sum_{\alpha\beta}
58: \bar{\psi}_\alpha M_{\alpha\beta} \psi_\beta,
59: \end{equation}
60: where $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are multi-indices for (discrete) spacetime,
61: spin and internal quantum numbers.
62: The matrix $M_{\alpha\beta}$ is some discretization of the Dirac
63: operator $\kern+0.1em /\kern-0.65em D+m$, such as
64: Eq.~(\ref{eq:WilsonQuarkAction}).
65: Note that it depends on the gauge field, but one may integrate over the
66: gauge fields after integrating over the quark fields.
67: Then, because the quark action is a quadratic form, the integral can be
68: carried out exactly:
69: \begin{equation}
70: \int \prod_{\alpha\beta} d\bar{\psi}_\alpha d\psi_\beta\,
71: e^{- \bar{\psi} M \psi} = \det M .
72: \label{eq:quarkdet}
73: \end{equation}
74: Similarly, products $\psi_\alpha\bar{\psi}_\beta$ in the integrand
75: $O_1\cdots O_n$ are replaced with quark
76: propagators~$[M^{-1}]_{\alpha\beta}$ using the familiar rules of Wick
77: contraction.
78: The computation of $M^{-1}$ is demanding, and the computation of $\det M$
79: (or, more precisely, changes in $\det M$ as the gauge field is changed)
80: is very demanding.
81:
82: With the quarks integrated analytically, it is the gluons that are
83: subject to the Monte Carlo method.
84: The factor weighting the integrals is now $\det M e^{-S_{\rm g}}$,
85: where $S_{\rm g}$ is the gluons' action.
86: Both $\det M$ and $e^{-S_{\rm g}}$ are the exponential of a number
87: that scales with the spacetime volume.
88: In Minkowski spacetime the exponent is an imaginary number, so
89: there are wild fluctuations for moderate changes in the gauge field.
90: On the other hand, in Euclidean spacetime, with an imaginary time
91: variable, $S_{\rm g}$ is real.
92: In that case (and assuming $\det M$ is non-negative) one can devise a
93: Monte Carlo with \emph{importance sampling}, which means that the
94: random number generator creates gauge fields weighted according to
95: $\det M e^{-S_{\rm g}}$.
96: With importance sampling the weights on the right-hand side of
97: Eq.~(\ref{eq:ensemble}) are independent of the fields,
98: so one can set~$w=1$.
99: Because importance sampling is necessary to make lattice QCD
100: numerically tractable, all numerical work is done in Euclidean
101: spacetime.
102:
103: Importance sampling works well if $\det M$ is positive.
104: For pairs of equal-mass quarks, this is easy to achieve.
105: With the Wilson action, Eq.~(\ref{eq:WilsonQuarkAction}),
106: $\gamma_5M\gamma_5=M^\dagger$.
107: Since this is a similarity transformation, $M$ and $M^\dagger$ have
108: the same physical content.
109: With $M$ for one flavor and $M^\dagger$ for the other (of same mass),
110: the fermion determinant is $\det(M^\dagger M)$, which is obviously
111: non-negative.
112: The same argument holds for Neuberger's
113: discretization,\cite{Neuberger:1997fp}
114: which is computationally more demanding, but has better chiral
115: symmetry (cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:chiral}).
116: For the Kogut-Susskind quark action,\cite{Susskind:1977ks} the matrix
117: $M_{\rm KS}$ is non-negative, but each Kogut-Susskind field creates 4
118: fermion species in the continuum limit.
119:
120: Thus, most calculations of $\det M$ are for 2 or 4 flavors.
121: The physically desirable situation with three flavors, with the
122: strange quark's mass different from that of two lighter quarks, is
123: difficult to achieve.
124: One way is to cope with occasionally negative
125: weights.\cite{Aoki:2001pt}
126: Some algorithms for generating the gauge fields set up a guided random
127: walk with a finite step size~$\epsilon$.%
128: \cite{Duane:1985ym,Ukawa:1985hr,Batrouni:1985jn}
129: In a widely used scheme for introducing the
130: fermions,\cite{Batrouni:1985jn} they can generate weights such as
131: $(\det M^\dagger M)^{1/2}$ or $(\det M_{\rm KS})^{1/4}$,
132: which formally give a single flavor.
133: There is some evidence that there may be subtleties associated with
134: non-zero~$\epsilon$ in large systems with small quark
135: masses.\cite{Sexton:2002pi}
136: These potential problems, and also the physical interpretation of the
137: fractional powers, could be monitored by looking at the pattern of
138: spontaneously broken chiral symmetry, cf.\ Sec.~\ref{sec:chiral}.
139:
140: The choice of imaginary time has an important practical advantage.
141: Consider the two-point correlation function
142: \begin{equation}
143: C_2(t) = \bra{0} \Phi_H(t) \Phi_H^\dagger(0) \ket{0},
144: \label{eq:C2}
145: \end{equation}
146: where $\Phi_H$ is an operator with the quantum numbers of the hadron
147: of interest,~$H$.
148: For simplicity, assume $t>0$ and take the total spatial momentum to
149: vanish.
150: Inserting a complete set of eigenstates of the Hamiltonian between
151: $\Phi_H$ and $\Phi_H^\dagger$,
152: \begin{equation}
153: C_2(t) = \sum_n \bra{0} \Phi_H \ket{H_n}
154: \bra{H_n} \Phi_H^\dagger \ket{0} e^{im_{H_n}t},
155: \end{equation}
156: where $m_{H_n}$ is the mass of $\ket{H_n}$, the $n$th radial excitation
157: with $H$'s quantum numbers.
158: For real $t$ it would be difficult to disentangle all these
159: contributions.
160: If, however, $t=ix_4$, with $x_4$ real and positive, then one has a sum
161: of damped exponentials.
162: For large $x_4$ the lowest-lying state dominates and
163: \begin{equation}
164: C_2(x_4) = |\bra{0} \Phi_H \ket{H}|^2 e^{-m_Hx_4} + \cdots,
165: \label{eq:C2exp}
166: \end{equation}
167: where $\ket{H}$ is the lowest-lying state and $m_H$ its mass.
168: The omitted terms are exponentially suppressed.
169: It is straightforward to test when the first term dominates a
170: numerically computed correlation function, and then fit the exponential
171: form to obtain the mass.
172:
173: This technique for isolating the lowest-lying state is also essential
174: for obtaining hadronic matrix elements.
175: For a transition from one hadron~$H$ to another~$H'$,
176: one must compute the matrix element $\bra{H'}Q\ket{H}$, where
177: $Q$ is the operator inducing the transition.
178: In flavor phenomenology, $Q$ is a term in the electroweak Hamiltonian;
179: for moments of parton densities, $Q$ is a local operator appearing in
180: the operator product expansion of two currents.
181: One uses a three-point correlation function
182: \begin{equation}
183: C_{H'QH}(x_4,y_4) = \bra{0} \Phi_{H'}(x_4+y_4) Q(y_4)
184: \Phi^\dagger_H(0) \ket{0},
185: \end{equation}
186: where only the Euclidean times of the operators have been written out.
187: Inserting complete sets of states and taking $x_4$ and $y_4$ large
188: enough,
189: \begin{equation}
190: C_{H'QH}(x_4,y_4) = \bra{0} \Phi_{H'} \ket{H'} \bra{H'} Q \ket{H}
191: \bra{H} \Phi^\dagger_H\ket{0} e^{-m_{H'}x_4-m_Hy_4}.
192: \label{eq:CQexp}
193: \end{equation}
194: The amplitudes $\bra{0}\Phi_{H'}\ket{H'}$ and
195: $\bra{H}\Phi^\dagger_B\ket{0}$ and the masses $m_{H'}$ and $m_H$
196: are obtained from two-point correlation functions $C_2$,
197: leaving $\bra{H'}Q\ket{H}$ to be determined from~$C_{H'QH}$.
198: To compute amplitudes for a transition from $H$ to the vacuum (as in a
199: leptonic decay), one can simply replace $\Phi_H$ in $C_2$ with the
200: charged current.
201:
202: Equations~(\ref{eq:C2})--(\ref{eq:CQexp}) assumed $t>0$,
203: $x_4+y_4>y_4>0$, {\em and} $L_4\to\infty$.
204: With finite~$L_4$ other time orderings lead to terms with
205: $e^{-m(L_4-t)}$.
206: They are straightforward to derive and to incorporate into fits.
207: Thus, these details do not alter the basic paradigm for computing
208: masses and matrix elements.
209:
210: These methods are conceptually clean and technically feasible for
211: calculating masses and hadronic matrix elements with at most one
212: hadron in the final state.
213: The procedure for computing correlation functions is as follows.
214: First generate an ensemble of lattice gluon fields with the appropriate
215: weight.
216: Next form the desired product $O_1\cdots O_n$, with quark variables
217: exactly integrated out to form propagators~$M^{-1}$.
218: Then take the average over the ensemble.
219: Finally, fit the Euclidean time dependence of
220: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:C2exp}) and~(\ref{eq:CQexp}).
221: With two hadrons in the final state, correlation functions can be
222: obtained in more or less the same way, but the interpretation of the
223: energies and amplitudes is more complicated, as discussed in
224: Sec.~\ref{subsec:V}.
225:
226: Within the same ensemble, there are correlations in the statistical
227: fluctuations of the quantities calculated.
228: Methods, such as bootstrap and jackknife, that propagate correlations
229: through the analysis are well understood and widely used.
230: So, these days, statistical errors rarely lead to controversy.
231: As discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:why}, it is not practical to carry out
232: the Monte Carlo calculations at very small lattice spacings or at very
233: small quark masses.
234: To gain control over these effects (using effective field theory to
235: guide extrapolations to the physical limit) requires small statistical
236: errors on the raw output of the Monte Carlo calculation.
237:
238: % quenched approximation
239:
240: As mentioned above, the computation of the factor $\det M$ in
241: Eq.~(\ref{eq:quarkdet}) is very demanding.
242: The determinant generates sea quarks inside a hadron.
243: It is thus tempting to replace $\det M$ with~$1$ \emph{and}
244: compensate the corresponding omission of the sea quarks with shifts
245: in the bare couplings.
246: This approximation is most often called the quenched
247: approximation.\cite{Marinari:1981qf}
248: A~more vivid name is the valence approximation,\cite{Weingarten:1981jy}
249: which stresses that the valence quarks (and gluons) in hadrons are
250: treated fully, and the sea quarks merely modeled.
251: The idea is analogous to a dielectric approximation in electromagnetism,
252: and it fails under similar circumstances.
253: In particular, if one is interested in comparing two quantities that
254: are sensitive to different energy scales, one cannot expect
255: the same dielectric shift to suffice.
256:
257: It is not easy to estimate quantitatively the effect of quenching.
258: The quenched approximation can be cast as the first term in a
259: convergent expansion,\cite{Sexton:1997ud} providing a method to
260: compute the shifts in the couplings, and further corrections.
261: The computed shift agrees with the empirical one, but it is about as
262: difficult to compute the next term as to restore the fermion
263: determinant.
264: For some quantities one can estimate the short-distance contribution
265: to the quenching shift.
266: Examples include the strong coupling~$\alpha_s$\cite{El-Khadra:1992vn}
267: the quark masses\cite{Mackenzie:1994zw,Davies:1994zw,Gough:1996zw},
268: and ${\cal F}(1)$, which is a form factor needed to determine the CKM
269: matrix element~$V_{cb}$.\cite{Hashimoto:2001ds}
270: It is the long-distance part which is harder to fathom.
271:
272: The quenched approximation is going away.
273: In heavy quark physics the {CP-PACS}\cite{AliKhan:2000eg,AliKhan:2001jg}
274: and MILC\cite{Bernard:2000nv} collaborations have unquenched
275: calculations of the heavy-light decay constants $f_B$, $f_{B_s}$,
276: $f_D$, and~$f_{D_s}$.
277: Both groups have results at several lattice spacings, so they can
278: study the $a$~dependence.
279: Their results are about 10--15\% higher than the most mature estimates
280: from the quenched approximation.
281: In addition, the Rome group has an unquenched calculation of the $b$
282: quark mass, which agrees well with their quenched
283: calculation.\cite{Gimenez:2000cj}
284: There are also unquenched calculations of moments of parton
285: densities.\cite{Dolgov:2002mn}
286:
287: