1: \documentclass{PoS}
2:
3: \usepackage{latexsym}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{epsfig}
6: \usepackage{graphics}
7: %\bibliographystyle{JHEP}
8: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
9: \PoS{PoS(LAT2005)258}
10:
11:
12:
13: \title{Is there a third-order phase transition in quenched QCD?}
14:
15:
16:
17: \ShortTitle{Third-order phase transition in QCD?}
18:
19:
20:
21: \author{L. Li and \speaker{Y. Meurice}\\
22:
23: University of Iowa\\
24:
25: E-mail: \email{yannick-meurice@uiowa.edu}}
26:
27:
28:
29:
30: \abstract{
31: We discuss the connection between the contributions of large field configurations
32: and the large order behavior of perturbation theory. For quenched $QCD$, the
33: sensitivity of the average plaquette to a removal of large field configurations has a narrow peak near $\beta=5.6$.
34: Various analysis of the order 10 weak coupling series for the
35: plaquette give robust indications
36: for a singularity in the third derivative of the free energy (second
37: derivative of the plaquette) with respect to $\beta$, near $\beta$ = 5.7.
38: We report results of numerical calculations.
39: The peak in the third derivative of the free energy present
40: on $4^4$ lattices disappears if the size of the lattice is increased isotropically
41: up to a $10^4$ lattice.
42: On the other hand, on $4\times L^3$ lattices, it
43: persists when $L$ increases. The location of the peak coincides with the onset of
44: a non-zero average for the Polyakov loop and seems related to the finite
45: temperature transition. We also discuss the discrepancy between the perturbative series and
46: the numerical values of the plaquette.
47: }
48:
49:
50:
51:
52:
53:
54:
55:
56:
57:
58: \FullConference{XXIIIrd International Symposium on Lattice Field Theory\\
59:
60: 25-30 July 2005\\
61:
62: Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland}
63:
64:
65:
66: \begin{document}
67: \section{Introduction}
68: Perturbation theory can be a frustrating tool for field theorists. Sometimes, it provides
69: extremely accurate answers, sometimes it is not even qualitatively correct. In recent
70: years, our main goal has been to construct
71: modified perturbative series which are converging and accurate. As briefly reviewed in Section \ref{sec:large}, our approach consists in removing large field configurations in a way that preserves the closeness to the correct answer.
72:
73: In the case of quenched $QCD$, there are several questions that are relevant for this approach and that have been addressed. How sensitive is the average plaquette $P$ to a large field cutoff \cite{effects04}? How does $P$ behave when the coupling becomes negative \cite{gluodyn04}? How does $P$ differ from its weak coupling expansion \cite{burgio97,rakow2002}? Are all the derivatives of $P$ with respect to $\beta$ continuous in the crossover region?
74: The analysis \cite{rakow2002,third} of the weak series for $P$ up to order 10 \cite{direnzo2000} suggests an (unexpected) singularity in the second derivative of $P$,
75: or in other words in the third derivative of the free energy. In the following, we report our recent attempts to find this singularity. As all the technical details regarding
76: this question have just appeared in a preprint \cite{third}, we will only summarize the
77: main results leaving room for more discussion regarding the difference between series and the numerical values of $P$.
78:
79: \section{Large field configurations and perturbation theory}
80: \label{sec:large}
81:
82: The reason why perturbation theory sometimes fail is well understood for scalar field
83: theory. Large field configurations have little effect on commonly used observables but
84: are important for the average of large powers of the field and dominate the large order
85: behavior of perturbative series.
86: A simple way to remove the large field configurations consists in
87: restricting the range of integration for the scalar fields.
88: \begin{equation}
89: \prod_x \int_{-\phi_{max}}^{\phi_{max}}d\phi_x \ .
90: \nonumber\end{equation}
91: For a generic observable $Obs.$ in a $\lambda \phi^4$ theory, we have then
92: \begin{equation}
93: Obs.(\lambda )\simeq\sum_{k=0}^{K}a_k(\phi_{max})\lambda^k
94: \nonumber\end{equation}
95: The method produces series which apparently converge
96: in nontrivial cases such as the anharmonic oscillator and $D=3$ Dyson hierarchical model
97: \cite{convpert,tractable}.
98:
99: The modified theory with a field cutoff differs from the original theory. Fortunately,
100: it seems possible, for a fixed order in perturbation theory, to adjust the field cutoff to an optimal value $\phi_{max}(\lambda,K)$ in order to minimize or eliminate the discrepancy with the (usually unknown) correct value of the observable in the original theory. In a simple example\cite{optim},
101: the strong coupling can be used to calculate approximately this optimal $\phi_{max}(\lambda,K)$. This method provides an approximate treatment of
102: the weak to strong coupling crossover and we hope it can be extended to gauge theory where this crossover \cite{kogut80} is a difficult problem.
103: The calculation of the modified coefficients remains a challenge, however approximately universal features of the transition between the small and large field cutoff limits
104: for the modified coefficients of the anharmonic oscillator \cite{asymp}, suggest the existence of simple analytical
105: formulas to describe the field cutoff dependence of large orders coefficients.
106:
107: This method needs to be extended to the case of lattice gauge theories.
108: Important differences with the scalar case need to be understood. For compact groups such as $SU(N)$,
109: the gauge fields are not arbitrarily large. Consequently, it is possible to define a
110: sensible theory at negative $\beta=2N/g^2$. However, the average plaquette
111: tends to two different values in the two limits $g^2\rightarrow \pm 0$ \cite{gluodyn04}.
112: This precludes the existence of a regular perturbative series about $g^2=0$.
113: A first order phase transition near $\beta =-22$, was also observed \cite{gluodyn04} for $SU(3)$.
114:
115: The impossibility of having a convergent perturbative series about $g^2=0$
116: is well understood \cite{plaquette} in the case of the partition function
117: for a single
118: plaquette which after gauge fixing to the identity on three links reads.
119: \begin{equation}
120: Z=\int dU {\rm e} ^{-\beta(1-\frac{1}{N}Re TrU)}\ ,
121: \end{equation}
122: If we expand the group element $U=e^{igA}$ with $A=A^aT^a$ and the Haar measure in powers of $g$, we obtain a converging sum that allows us to calculate $Z$ accurately, however, the ``coefficients'' are $g$-dependent.
123: This comes from the finite bounds of integration of the gauge fields that
124: are proportional to $1/g$. If $g^2$ is small and positive, we can extend the range of integration to infinity with errors that seem controlled by $\rm{e}^{-2\beta}$.
125: By ``decompactifying'' the gauge fields, we have transformed a converging sum into a power series in $g$ with constant
126: coefficients growing factorially with the order.
127: The situation is now resemblant to the scalar case and can be treated using this analogy.
128: We can introduce a gauge invariant field cutoff that is treated as a $g$ independent quantity.
129: For a given order in $g$, one can use the strong coupling expansion to determine
130: the optimal value of this cutoff. This provides a significant improvement in regions where
131: neither weak or strong coupling is adequate \cite{plaquette}.
132:
133: This program can in principle be extended to LGT on $D$-dimensional lattices, however the calculation of the modified coefficients is difficult. An appropriately modified version of the
134: stochastic method seems to be the most promising for this task.
135: As the technology for completing this task is being developed, we will discuss several
136: questions about the average plaquette and its perturbative expansion.
137:
138: \section{The average plaquette and its perturbative expansion in quenched $QCD$}
139:
140: We now consider a $SU(3)$ lattice gauge theory in 4 dimensions without quarks (quenched $QCD$). We use the Wilson action without improvement.
141: Our main object will be the average plaquette action denoted $P$ and can be
142: expressed as $-\partial (\rm{ln}(Z)/6L^4)/\partial \beta$.
143: The effect of a gauge invariant field cutoff is very small but of a different size below, near or above $\beta=5.6$ (see Fig. 6 of Ref. \cite{effects04}).
144: This is in agreement with the idea that modifying the weight of the large
145: field configurations affects the crossover behavior \cite{mack78}. The weak coupling series for $P$ has been calculated up to order 10 in Ref. \cite{direnzo2000}:
146: \begin{equation}\nonumber
147: P_W(1/\beta)=\sum_{m=1}^{10} b_m \beta^{-m} +\dots.
148: \nonumber\end{equation}
149: The coefficients are given in table 1.
150: The values corresponding to the series and the numerical data calculated on a $16^4$ lattice
151: is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:pade}. A discrepancy becomes visible below $\beta = 6$.
152: The situation can be improved by using Pad\'e approximants, however, they do not show any change in curvature and often have poles near $\beta=5.2$. For comparison, Pad\'e
153: approximant for the strong coupling expansion \cite{balian74err} depart visibly from the
154: numerical values when $\beta$ becomes slightly larger than 5. In conclusion, it is not clear that by combining the two series we can get a complete information regarding the
155: crossover behavior.
156: \begin{figure}
157: \label{fig:pade}
158: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=c:/papers/ympert/su3/wpade.eps,width=4.8in}}
159: %\end{figure}
160: %begin{figure}
161: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=2d.EPS,width=4.8in}}
162: \includegraphics[width=2.8in,angle=0]{wpade2.eps}
163: \includegraphics[width=2.8in,angle=0]{strpade2.eps}
164: %\includegraphics[width=4.4in,angle=0]{c:/papers/ympert/latpert/pd2_68.eps}
165: \caption{Regular weak series (blue) and 4/6 weak Pad\'e (red) for the plaquette (left);
166: 7/7 strong Pad\'e (right) }
167: \end{figure}
168:
169: The difference between the weak coupling expansion $P_W$ and the numerical data $P$ can be further analyzed. From the example of the one-plaquette model \cite{plaquette}, one could infer that by adding the tails of integration, we should make errors of order
170: $\rm{e}^{-C\beta}$, for some constant $C$. Consistently with this argument, the difference
171: should scale as a power of the lattice spacing, namely
172: \begin{equation}
173: P_{Non Pert.}=(P-P_W)\propto a^A \propto \left({\rm e}^{-\frac{4\pi^2}{33}\beta} \right)^A \ .
174: \end{equation}
175: A case for
176: $A=2$ has been made in Ref. \cite{burgio97} based on a series of order 8.
177: Another analysis supports $A=4$ (the canonical dimension of $F_{\mu \nu}F^{\mu \nu }$) \cite{rakow2002,rakowthese}. Fig. \ref{fig:apower} shows fits at different orders
178: and in different regions that support each of these possibilities. It would be interesting to study cases where long series are available and non-perturbative effects
179: well understood in order to define a prescription to extract the power properly.
180: \begin{figure}
181: \label{fig:apower}
182: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=c:/papers/ympert/su3/wpade.eps,width=4.8in}}
183: %\end{figure}
184: %begin{figure}
185: %\centerline{\psfig{figure=2d.EPS,width=4.8in}}
186: \includegraphics[width=2.9in,angle=0]{sd8.eps}
187: \includegraphics[width=2.9in,angle=0]{sd10bis.eps}
188: %\includegraphics[width=4.4in,angle=0]{c:/papers/ympert/latpert/pd2_68.eps}
189: \caption{$Log_{10}|P-P_W|$ for order 8 (left) and 10 (right, in a different range of $\beta$); the constant is fitted asumming
190: $a^2$ (blue) or $a^4$ (red). }
191: \end{figure}
192:
193: The series $P_W$ has another intriguing feature:
194: $r_m=b_m/b_{m-1}$, the ratio of two
195: successive coefficients seem to extrapolates near 6 when $m\rightarrow\infty$ when $m$ becomes large \cite{rakow2002}. This suggests a behavior of the form
196: \begin{equation}\nonumber
197: P=(1/\beta _c -1/\beta )^{-\gamma } (A_0 + A_1 (\beta _c -\beta)^{
198: \Delta } +....)\ ,
199: \label{eq:convpar} \nonumber\end{equation}
200: as encountered in the study of the critical behavior of spin models.
201: We have reanalyzed \cite{third} the series using estimators \cite{nickel80} known as the
202: the extrapolated ratio ($\widehat{R}_m$)
203: and the
204: extrapolated slope ($\widehat{S}_m$)
205: in order to estimate $\beta_c$ and $\gamma $. We found that the weak series suggests
206: \begin{equation}
207: \label{eq:critical}
208: P\propto (1/5.74-1/\beta)^{1.08} \ .
209: \end{equation}
210: These estimators are sensitive to small variations in the coefficients and show
211: a remarkable stability when the volume is increased from $8^4$ to $24^4$. The numbers are in good agreement with
212: the estimates of Ref. \cite{rakow2002} with other methods.
213: A finite radius of convergence is
214: not expected and one does not expect any singularity between
215: the limits where
216: confinement and asymptotic freedom hold.
217: It may simply be that the series is too short to draw conclusion about its asymptotic behavior. A simple example where this happens \cite{third} is
218: \begin{equation}
219: Q(\beta)=\int_0^{\infty}dt {\rm e}^{-t}t^{\alpha}[1-t\beta_c/(\alpha \beta)]^{-\gamma} \ ,
220: \end{equation}
221: with $\alpha$ sufficiently large.
222: If $m<<\alpha$,
223: $r_m\simeq \beta_c(1+(\gamma -1)/m), $
224: For $m>>\alpha$ we have $r_m \propto m$ and the coefficients grow factorially.
225:
226: If we take Eq. (\ref{eq:critical}) seriously, it implies that the second derivative of $P$ diverges near $\beta =5.7$. We have searched for such a singularity \cite{third}.
227: We have shown that the peak in the third derivative of the free energy present
228: on $4^4$ lattices disappears if the size of the lattice is increased isotropically
229: up to a $10^4$ lattice.
230: On the other hand, on $4\times L^3$ lattices, a jump in the third
231: derivative persists when $L$ increases. Its location coincides with the onset of
232: a non-zero average for the Polyakov loop and seems consequently related to the finite
233: temperature transition. It should be noted that the possibility of a third-order phase transition
234: has been discussed for effective theories of the Polyakov's loop \cite{pisarski}.
235:
236: A few words about the tadpole improvement \cite{lepage92} for the weak series. If we consider the resummation
237: \begin{equation}
238: P_W(1/\beta)=\sum_{m=1}^{K} e_m \beta_R^{-m} + O(\beta_R^{-K-1})
239: \end{equation}
240: with $\beta_R=\beta (1-\sum_{m=1} b_m \beta^{-m})$,
241: the ratios $e_{m}/e_{m-1}$ stay close to -1.5 for $m$ up to 7, but seem to start oscillating more for large $m$.
242: %\end{figure}
243:
244: \begin{table}[h]
245: \begin{tabular}{||c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c||}
246: \hline
247:
248: $m$&1&2&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10\cr
249: \hline
250: $b_m$& 2 & 1.2208 & 2.9621 & 9.417 &
251: 34.39 & 136.8 & 577.4 & 2545 &
252: 11590 &54160 \cr
253: $e_m$&2 & -2.779 &3.637 &-3.961 &4.766 &
254: -3.881 & 6.822 &
255: -1.771 & 17.50 &
256: 48.08 \cr
257:
258: \hline
259: \end{tabular}
260: \caption{$b_m$: regular coefficients; $e_m$: tadpole improved coefficients}
261: \end{table}
262:
263: This research was supported in part by the Department of Energy
264: under Contract No. FG02-91ER40664. We thank G. Burgio, F. di Renzo and P. Rakow for interesting discussions.
265: \providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}\begingroup\raggedright\begin{thebibliography}{10}
266:
267: \bibitem{effects04}
268: L.~Li and Y.~Meurice, {\it Effects of large field cutoffs in scalar and gauge
269: models}, {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl.} {\bf 140} (2005) 788--790,
270: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0409096}{{\tt hep-lat/0409096}}].
271:
272: \bibitem{gluodyn04}
273: L.~Li and Y.~Meurice, {\it Lattice gluodynamics at negative g**2}, {\em Phys.
274: Rev. D} {\bf 71} (2005) 016008,
275: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0410029}{{\tt hep-lat/0410029}}].
276:
277: \bibitem{burgio97}
278: G.~Burgio, F.~Di~Renzo, G.~Marchesini, and E.~Onofri, {\it
279: Lambda**2-contribution to the condensate in lattice gauge theory}, {\em
280: Phys. Lett.} {\bf B422} (1998) 219--226,
281: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/9706209}{{\tt hep-ph/9706209}}].
282:
283: \bibitem{rakow2002}
284: R.~Horsley, P.~E.~L. Rakow, and G.~Schierholz, {\it Separating perturbative and
285: non-perturbative contributions to the plaquette}, {\em Nucl. Phys. Proc.
286: Suppl.} {\bf 106} (2002) 870--872,
287: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0110210}{{\tt hep-lat/0110210}}].
288:
289: \bibitem{third}
290: L.~Li and Y.~Meurice, {\it About a possible 3rd order phase transition at t = 0
291: in 4d gluodynamics}, \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0507034}{{\tt
292: hep-lat/0507034}}.
293:
294: \bibitem{direnzo2000}
295: F.~Di~Renzo and L.~Scorzato, {\it A consistency check for renormalons in
296: lattice gauge theory: beta**(-10) contributions to the su(3) plaquette},
297: {\em JHEP} {\bf 10} (2001) 038,
298: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0011067}{{\tt hep-lat/0011067}}].
299:
300: \bibitem{convpert}
301: Y.~Meurice, {\it A simple method to make asymptotic series of Feynman diagrams
302: converge}, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 88} (2002) 141601,
303: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0103134}{{\tt hep-th/0103134}}].
304:
305: \bibitem{tractable}
306: L.~Li and Y.~Meurice, {\it A tractable example of perturbation theory with a
307: field cutoff: The anharmonic oscillator}, {\em J. Phys. A} {\bf 38} (2005)
308: 8139--8153, [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0506038}{{\tt
309: hep-th/0506038}}].
310:
311: \bibitem{optim}
312: B.~Kessler, L.~Li, and Y.~Meurice, {\it New optimization methods for converging
313: perturbative series with a field cutoff}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D69} (2004)
314: 045014, [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0309022}{{\tt
315: hep-th/0309022}}].
316:
317: \bibitem{kogut80}
318: J.~B. Kogut and J.~Shigemitsu, {\it Crossover from weak to strong coupling in
319: su(n) lattice gauge theories}, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 45} (1980) 410.
320:
321: \bibitem{asymp}
322: L.~Li and Y.~Meurice, {\it Asymptotically universal crossover in perturbation
323: theory with a field cutoff},
324: \href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0507196}{{\tt hep-th/0507196}}.
325:
326: \bibitem{plaquette}
327: L.~Li and Y.~Meurice, {\it An example of optimal field cut in lattice gauge
328: perturbation theory}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D71} (2005) 054509,
329: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0501023}{{\tt hep-lat/0501023}}].
330:
331: \bibitem{mack78}
332: G.~Mack and V.~B. Petkova, {\it Comparison of lattice gauge theories with gauge
333: groups z(2) and su(2)}, {\em Ann. Phys.} {\bf 123} (1979) 442;
334: G.~Bhanot and M.~Creutz, {\it Variant actions and phase structure in lattice
335: gauge theory}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D24} (1981) 3212;
336: P.~de~Forcrand and O.~Jahn, {\it Comparison of so(3) and su(2) lattice gauge
337: theory}, {\em Nucl. Phys.} {\bf B651} (2003) 125--142,
338: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0211004}{{\tt hep-lat/0211004}}];
339: M.~Hasenbusch and S.~Necco, {\it Su(3) lattice gauge theory with a mixed
340: fundamental and adjoint plaquette action: Lattice artefacts}, {\em JHEP}
341: {\bf 08} (2004) 005, [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/0405012}{{\tt
342: hep-lat/0405012}}].
343:
344: \bibitem{balian74err}
345: R.~Balian, J.~M. Drouffe, and C.~Itzykson, {\it Gauge fields on a lattice. 3.
346: strong coupling expansions and transition points}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf
347: D19} (1979) 2514.
348:
349: \bibitem{rakowthese}
350: P.~Rakow et~al.
351: \newblock these proceedings.
352:
353: \bibitem{nickel80}
354: B.~Nickel, {\em Phase Transitions, Cargese 1980}.
355: \newblock Plenum Press, New York, 1982.
356:
357: \bibitem{pisarski}
358: A. Dumitru, J. Lenaghan and R. Pisarski, {\it Deconfinement in matrix models about the Gross-Witten point}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D71} (2005) 074004,
359: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-ph/0410294}{{\tt hep-ph/0410294}}].
360:
361: \bibitem{lepage92}
362: G.~P. Lepage and P.~B. Mackenzie, {\it On the viability of lattice perturbation
363: theory}, {\em Phys. Rev.} {\bf D48} (1993) 2250--2264,
364: [\href{http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-lat/9209022}{{\tt hep-lat/9209022}}].
365:
366:
367:
368: \end{thebibliography}\endgroup
369: %\begin{thebibliography}
370: %\bibliography{c:/papers/mainbib}
371:
372: %\end{thebibliography}
373:
374: \end{document}
375: