1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath,epsfig,amssymb,eufrak,dsfont}
3: \usepackage{amscd,latexsym}
4: \usepackage{color,ccaption}
5:
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7:
8: \headheight=12pt
9: %\headsep=36pt
10: \footskip=48pt
11: \hoffset=-.3truecm
12: \voffset=-1.2truecm
13:
14: \textwidth=15truecm
15: \textheight=22truecm
16:
17: \date{}
18:
19: \def\ppall{\mathaccent23p}
20: \def\ppall{\mathaccent23p}
21: \def\kpall{\mathaccent23k}
22: \def\qpall{\mathaccent23q}
23: \def\xlf{\raisebox{+0.2em}{\color{red}\boldmath{$\chi$}}\hspace{-0.2ex}\raisebox{-0.2em}{\color{green}L}
24: \hspace{-1.5ex}\raisebox{+0.14em}{\color{blue}F}\hspace{2mm}}
25:
26: \def\lsi{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$<$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
27: \def\gsi{\raise0.3ex\hbox{$>$\kern-0.75em\raise-1.1ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
28:
29: \newcommand{\lsim}{\mathop{\lsi}}
30: \newcommand{\gsim}{\mathop{\gsi}}
31:
32: \newcommand{\e}{{\rm{e}}}
33: \newcommand{\msb}{\overline{\mathrm{MS}}}
34: \newcommand{\dds}{\stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{D}}
35:
36: \newcommand{\kcpi}{\kappa_c^{\rm pion}}
37: \newcommand{\kcP}{\kappa_c^{~\!\!\!_{\rm PCAC}}}
38: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
39:
40: \input macros.sty % \eqalign, \meqalign
41: \input eqalign.sty % \eqalign, \meqalign
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44:
45: \begin{document}
46:
47: \begin{titlepage}
48:
49: \title{
50: {\vspace{-1.5cm} \normalsize
51: \hfill \parbox{40mm}{DESY/05-139\\
52: SFB/CPP-05-35\\November 2005}}\\[10mm]
53: Parton Distribution Functions\\ with Twisted Mass Fermions}
54: \author{S.~Capitani$^{\, 1}$, K.~Jansen$^{\, 2}$, M.~Papinutto$^{\, 2}$\hspace{-0.1cm}
55: \footnote{Present address: INFN Sezione di Roma 3, Via della Vasca Navale 84, I-00146 Roma, ITALY}, \\
56: A.~Shindler$^{\, 2}$, C.~Urbach$^{\, 2,\,3}$\hspace{-0.1cm}
57: \footnote{Present address: Theoretical Physics Division, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences,
58: University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX, UK} and I.~Wetzorke$^{\, 2}$\\
59: %
60: \\
61: {\bf \xlf Collaboration}\\
62: \\
63: %
64: {\small $^{1}$ Institut f\"ur Physik/Theoretische Physik}\\
65: {\small Universit\"at Graz, A-8010 Graz, Austria} \\ \ \\
66: {\small $^{2}$ John von Neumann-Institut f\"ur Computing NIC,} \\
67: {\small Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany} \\ \ \\
68: {\small $^{3}$ Institut f\"{u}r Theoretische Physik, Freie Universit\"{a}t Berlin,} \\
69: {\small Arnimallee 14, D-14195 Berlin, Germany} \\
70: }
71: \maketitle
72:
73: \begin{abstract}
74: We present a first Wilson twisted mass fermion calculation of the
75: matrix element between pion states of the twist-2 operator, which is related to
76: the the lowest moment $\langle x\rangle$ of the valence quark parton
77: distribution function in a pion.
78: Using Wilson twisted mass fermions in the quenched approximation
79: we demonstrate that $\langle x\rangle$ can be computed at small
80: pseudoscalar meson masses
81: down to values of order 250 MeV. We investigate the scaling behaviour of
82: this physically important quantity by applying two definitions of the
83: critical mass and observe a scaling compatible with the expected O($a^2$)
84: behaviour in both cases. A combined continuum extrapolation allows
85: to obtain reliable results for $\langle x\rangle$ at very small pseudoscalar meson
86: masses, which previously could not be explored by lattice QCD
87: simulations.
88: \vspace{0.75cm}
89: \noindent
90: %%%{\it PACS:} ; ; \\
91: %%%{\it Keywords:} ; .
92: \end{abstract}
93:
94: \end{titlepage}
95:
96: \section{Introduction}
97: In lattice QCD the so-called chiral extrapolation
98: of data obtained at pseudoscalar meson masses of about
99: 500 MeV to the physical pion mass value (140 MeV) is one of
100: the main systematic uncertainties in today's lattice QCD calculations.
101: As an example from our own work let us quote a recent paper \cite{Guagnelli:2004ga}
102: where the lowest moment $\langle x\rangle$ of the valence quark parton distribution
103: function in a pion has been calculated, fully controlling the continuum
104: limit, finite size effects \cite{Guagnelli:2004ww}
105: and the non-perturbative renormalization
106: \cite{Guagnelli:2003hw}. The only remaining uncertainty, besides the quenched
107: approximation, was the chiral extrapolation.
108:
109: In this letter we want to report on a first step towards eliminating also this
110: systematic error by employing the twisted mass formulation of lattice QCD
111: \cite{Frezzotti:2000nk}
112: which allows to regulate unphysically small eigenvalues of the Wilson-Dirac
113: operator
114: and simultaneously achieves an O($a$)-improvement of physical
115: observables without the need of improvement coefficients \cite{Frezzotti:2003ni}
116: (automatic O($a$) improvement).
117: With the example of $\langle x\rangle$
118: we will demonstrate that indeed this formulation of lattice QCD
119: allows to bridge the gap between results at pseudoscalar meson mass values of 500 MeV
120: or larger -- as obtained in conventional simulations -- and the physical value
121: of the pion mass. Performing the simulations at a number of values of the
122: gauge coupling $g_0^2=6/\beta$, the continuum limit of $\langle x\rangle$
123: is performed at values of the pseudoscalar meson mass small enough to
124: allow, at least in principle, the
125: comparison of the numerical results with the predictions from chiral
126: perturbation theory.
127:
128: Wilson twisted mass fermions have been employed already in a
129: number of quenched simulations
130: \cite{Jansen:2003ir,Bietenholz:2004sa,Bietenholz:2004wv,Abdel-Rehim:2004gx,Abdel-Rehim:2005gz,
131: Jansen:2005gf,Jansen:2005kk,Abdel-Rehim:2005qv,Abdel-Rehim:2005yx}. See refs.
132: \cite{Frezzotti:2004pc,Shindler:2005vj} for recent reviews.
133:
134: Also full QCD simulations using this approach have been performed and
135: proved to be very useful in studying the phase
136: structure of lattice QCD with Wilson type fermions
137: \cite{Farchioni:2004us,Farchioni:2004ma,Farchioni:2004fs,Farchioni:2005tu}.
138: On the theoretical side, various studies were performed by means of the
139: Symanzik expansion and of chiral perturbation theory
140: \cite{Sharpe:1998xm,Munster:2004am,Scorzato:2004da,Sharpe:2004ps,Aoki:2004ta,Sharpe:2004ny,Frezzotti:2005gi}.
141:
142: In recent quenched simulations
143: \cite{Abdel-Rehim:2005gz,Jansen:2005gf,Jansen:2005kk} it has been shown
144: that the Wilson twisted mass approach can be used to simulate small pseudoscalar meson
145: masses of order 250 MeV while keeping O($a^2$) cut-off effects
146: under control, when employing
147: the definition of the critical mass derived from the vanishing of the
148: PCAC quark mass \cite{Aoki:2004ta,Sharpe:2004ny,Frezzotti:2005gi}.
149: These simulations were done for basic observables as
150: extracted from 2-point correlation functions. In this letter we will extend
151: the investigation of Wilson twisted mass fermions also to
152: the physically important case of 3-point functions, in particular
153: for matrix elements related to moments of parton distribution functions
154: which are relevant in deep inelastic scattering.
155:
156: \section{Lattice action and operators}
157:
158: \subsection{Wilson twisted mass fermions}
159:
160: In this letter we will work on a lattice $L^3 \times T$
161: with Wilson twisted mass fermions \cite{Frezzotti:2000nk} which can be
162: arranged to be O($a$) improved without employing specific improvement terms
163: \cite{Frezzotti:2003ni}.
164: The action for a degenerate flavour doublet of twisted mass fermions can be written as
165: %
166: \begin{equation}
167: \label{tmaction}
168: S[U,\psi,\bar\psi] = a^4 \sum_x \bar\psi(x) ( D_W + m_0 + i \mu
169: \gamma_5\tau_3 ) \psi(x)\; ,
170: \end{equation}
171: where the Wilson-Dirac operator $D_{\rm W}$ is given by
172: \be
173: D_{\rm W} = \sum_{\mu=1}^4 \frac{1}{2}
174: [ \gamma_\mu(\nabla_\mu^* + \nabla_\mu) - a \nabla_\mu^*\nabla_\mu]
175: \label{Dw}
176: \ee
177: $\nabla_\mu$ and $\nabla_\mu^*$ denote the usual forward
178: and backward derivatives, $m_0$ and $\mu$ denote the untwisted and twisted
179: bare quark masses.
180: We refer to refs.~\cite{Bietenholz:2004sa,Bietenholz:2004wv} for further
181: unexplained notations.
182: Here and in the following $\psi(x)$ indicates a flavour doublet of quarks.
183:
184: A key element in this twisted mass setup is the definition of the critical
185: quark mass $m_c$, since, in order to obtain automatic O($a$) improvement, the target
186: continuum theory should have a vanishing untwisted quark mass.
187: In the present work, we will employ two
188: definitions for the critical mass with the final aim of a combined
189: continuum extrapolation of the results obtained in the two cases.
190: The first definition of the critical mass is the point where
191: the pseudoscalar meson mass, computed with plain Wilson fermions ($\mu =0$)
192: vanishes, the second, where the
193: PCAC quark mass, computed in the Wilson twisted mass setup, vanishes.
194: See refs. \cite{Jansen:2005gf,Jansen:2005gf,Shindler:2005vj}, for details on how the
195: critical mass has been computed numerically.
196: In the following we will refer to the first
197: situation as the ``pion definition'' and to the second situation
198: as the ``PCAC definition'' of the critical point.
199: Both definitions should lead to $O(a)$-improvement, but
200: they can induce very different $O(a^2)$ effects, in particular at
201: small pseudoscalar meson masses \cite{Aoki:2004ta,Sharpe:2004ny,Frezzotti:2005gi}.
202: Indeed, in refs.~\cite{Bietenholz:2004sa,Bietenholz:2004wv} we reported that
203: the pion definition can have substantial $O(a^2)$ effects which are
204: amplified when the quark mass becomes small and violates the
205: inequality \mbox{$\mu > a\Lambda^2$} (where $\mu$ is, at full twist,
206: the parameter which provides mass to the pseudoscalar meson).
207: On the other hand, when the PCAC definition of the critical
208: mass is used, these particular kind of $O(a^2)$ cut-off effects are
209: dramatically reduced as was shown numerically in refs.~\cite{Abdel-Rehim:2005gz,Jansen:2005gf,Jansen:2005kk},
210: and theoretically
211: in refs.~\cite{Aoki:2004ta,Sharpe:2004ny,Frezzotti:2005gi}.
212:
213: The purpose of the present letter is a demonstration that Wilson
214: twisted mass fermions are in a position to reach small quark masses and eventually
215: allow a comparison with chiral perturbation theory also for more complicated
216: physical observables than the 2-point functions considered in
217: refs.~\cite{Jansen:2003ir,Bietenholz:2004sa,Bietenholz:2004wv,Abdel-Rehim:2005gz,Jansen:2005gf,Jansen:2005kk,
218: Abdel-Rehim:2005qv,Abdel-Rehim:2005yx}.
219: A computation of pion form factors
220: employing the twisted mass fermion approach was already presented in
221: ref.~\cite{Abdel-Rehim:2004gx}, but at a rather high values of the
222: pseudoscalar meson mass (470 and 660 MeV),
223: using only the pion definition of the critical quark mass.
224:
225: \subsection{The twist-2, non-singlet operator}
226:
227: The towers of twist-2 operators related to the unpolarized structure functions
228: have the following expressions
229: \be
230: O^a_{\mu_1 \cdots \mu_N}(x) = \frac{1}{2^{N-1}} \bar\psi(x)\gamma_{\{\mu_1}
231: \lrD_{\mu_2}\cdots \lrD_{\mu_N\}}\frac{1}{2} \tau^a\psi (x)\; ,
232: \label{eq:op}
233: \ee
234: where $\{\cdots\}$ means symmetrization on the Lorentz indices and
235: \be
236: \lrD_{\mu} = \rD_{\mu} - \lD_{\mu}; \qquad D_{\mu} =
237: \frac{1}{2}[\nabla_\mu + \nabla_\mu^{*}]\; .
238: \ee
239: The flavour structure is specified by the Pauli matrices $\tau^a$ where we
240: include here also the identity with $\tau^0=2 \cdot \mathds{1}$.
241: In general one should perform an axial rotation in order to obtain the
242: expressions for the twist-2 operators for the twisted mass formulation.
243: For our purposes it is enough to notice that the operators in
244: eq. (\ref{eq:op}) with flavour index $a=0,3$ do not rotate.
245: We concentrate in this
246: work on the twist-2 quark operator related to the lowest moment
247: of the valence quark parton distribution function in a pion.
248: In particular for the {\it up} quark (the {\it down} quark can be treated in
249: the same way) this amounts to consider operators of the following form
250: \be
251: {\mathcal O}^u_{\mu \nu}(x) = \frac{1}{2}\bar\psi (x) \gamma_{\{\mu}
252: \lrD_{\nu\}} \frac{(1+\tau^3)}{2}\psi (x) - \delta_{\mu \nu} \cdot {\rm trace~terms}\; ,
253: \label{eq:ope1_tr}
254: \ee
255:
256: There are
257: two representations of such a non-singlet operator on the lattice
258: \cite{Baake:1982ah,Mandula:1983ut}.
259: In the following we will concentrate on the operator
260: \be
261: \cO^u_{44}(x) = \frac{1}{2} \bar\psi(x) \Big[ \gamma_4 \lrD_4 - {1 \over 3}
262: \sum_{k=1}^3 \gamma_k \lrD_k \Big] \frac{(1+\tau^3)}{2} \psi(x)\; ,
263: \label{O44}
264: \ee
265: since in computing the matrix elements of this operator one has not to supply
266: an external momentum (an external momentum increases considerably
267: the noise to signal ratio).
268:
269: The matrix elements of this operator can be computed in the standard way,
270: described in refs. \cite{Martinelli:1987zd,Best:1997qp}. We indicate with
271: \be
272: P^{\pm}(x) = \bar\psi(x) \gamma_5 \frac{\tau^{\pm}}{2} \psi(x)\; , \qquad
273: \tau^{\pm} = \frac{\tau^1 \pm i\tau^2}{2}
274: \ee
275: the interpolating operator for the charged pseudoscalar meson.
276: The ratio of the 3-point function
277: \be
278: C_{44}(y_4) = a^6 \sum_{{\bf x},{\bf y}}\langle P^+(0) \cO_{44}({\bf y},y_4)
279: P^-({\bf x},T/2) \rangle\; ,
280: \label{eq:C44}
281: \ee
282: and the 2-point function
283: \be
284: C_P(x_4) = a^3\sum_{{\bf x}}\langle P^+(0) P^-({\bf x},x_4) \rangle\; ,
285: \ee
286: is related to the matrix element we are interested in.
287: The Wick contractions of the correlation function (\ref{eq:C44}) contain also
288: a disconnected piece that we neglect consistently with the fact that we are
289: interested in the valence quark distribution.
290: In particular if we perform a transfer matrix decomposition and define
291: \be
292: R(y_4) = \frac{C_{44}(y_4)}{C_P(T/2)}\; ,
293: \ee
294: in the limit when only the fundamental state dominates ($0 \ll y_4
295: \ll T/2$), and the ratio $R$ reaches a plateau in $y_4$, we obtain
296: \be
297: \langle 0,PS| \cO_{44} | 0,PS\rangle = 2 m_{PS} R\; .
298: \ee
299: where $| 0,PS\rangle$ indicates the fundamental state in the charged
300: pseudoscalar channel.
301: The relevant bare quantity is then
302: \be
303: \langle x \rangle^{\rm bare} = \frac{1}{m_{PS}}\cdot R\; .
304: \ee
305: In fig.~{\ref{fig:plateau} we show an example
306: of such a plateau from which we read off the bare matrix element, from our
307: second smallest pseudoscalar meson mass and smallest lattice spacing.
308:
309: \begin{figure}[htb]
310: \vspace{-0.0cm}
311: \begin{center}
312: \epsfig{file=plots/plateau_b6.2.ps,angle=270,width=0.8\linewidth}
313: \end{center}
314: \vspace{-0.0cm}
315: \caption{$\langle x \rangle^{\rm bare}$ at $\beta=6.2$ and a
316: pseudoscalar meson mass of
317: about 370 MeV; we show the average of the two plateaux around $T/4$ and $3T/4$.
318: \label{fig:plateau}}
319: \end{figure}
320:
321: The matrix element obtained in this way has to be renormalized by a
322: multiplicative renormalization factor.
323: To this end, we took the $Z_\mathrm{RGI}$ as computed in
324: refs.~\cite{Guagnelli:2004ga,Guagnelli:2003hw} from a Schr\"odinger functional
325: (SF) renormalization scheme \cite{Luscher:1992an,Sint:1993un,Sint:1995rb,Jansen:1995ck},
326: with standard Wilson action.
327: The renormalization factor will affect the renormalized matrix element by
328: $O(a)$ contributions.
329: In order to check the O($a$) effects coming from the boundaries of the SF
330: we have varied the improvement coefficients
331: typical of the SF boundaries and we have observed no variation in the
332: continuum limit, indicating that these boundary $O(a)$ effects are negligible.
333: Nevertheless the continuum limit discussed in the following section is always
334: performed with the boundary improvement coefficients set to their perturbative values.
335:
336: The renormalized matrix element has a well defined continuum limit and in the
337: phenomenologically relevant $\msbar$ scheme it is given by
338: \be
339: \langle x \rangle^{\msbar} (\mu,r_0m_{PS}) = \lim_{a\to 0}
340: \frac{\langle x \rangle^{\rm bare}(a,m_{PS}) Z_\mathrm{RGI}(a) }{f^{\msbar}(\mu)} \; \qquad
341: \mu=2~ {\rm GeV} ,
342: \ee
343: where $Z_\mathrm{RGI}$ and $f^{\msbar}(\mu)$ were computed in
344: ref. \cite{Guagnelli:2004ga} (see this reference for further details).
345: We remind here that this $\mu= 2$ GeV indicates the renormalization scale and
346: not the twisted mass, since we are using a mass independent renormalization scale.
347:
348: \section{Numerical results}
349:
350: Our quenched simulations were performed for a number of bare quark masses in a
351: corresponding pseudoscalar meson mass range of $270 \mathrm{~MeV} < m_{\rm PS} < 1.2
352: \mathrm{~GeV}$ using the Wilson plaquette gauge action, employing
353: periodic boundary conditions for all fields.
354: In table~\ref{table:simpara} we give further details
355: of our simulation parameters.
356:
357: \begin{table}[!t]
358: \begin{center}
359: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|}
360: \hline
361: \hline
362: $\beta$ & 5.85 & 6.00 & 6.10 & 6.20 & 6.45 \\
363: \hline
364: $a$ (fm) & 0.123 & 0.093 & 0.079 & 0.068 & 0.048 \\
365: $r_0/a$ & 4.067 & 5.368 & 6.324 & 7.360 & 10.458\\
366: $L/a$ & 16 & 16 & 20 & 24 & 32\\
367: $T/a$ & 32 & 32 & 40 & 48 & 64\\
368: \hline
369: \hline
370: &\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{pion definition ($\kcpi$)}\\
371: \hline
372: $N_{\rm meas}$ & 255 & 388 & 300 & 207 & 214 \\
373: \hline
374: $\mu_2 a$& 0.0100 & 0.0076 & 0.0064 & 0.0055 & 0.0039\\
375: $\mu_3 a$& 0.0200 & 0.0151 & 0.0128 & 0.0111 & \\
376: $\mu_4 a$& 0.0400 & 0.0302 & 0.0257 & 0.0221 & \\
377: $\mu_5 a$& 0.0600 & 0.0454 & 0.0385 & 0.0332 & \\
378: $\mu_6 a$& 0.0800 & 0.0605 & 0.0514 & 0.0442 & \\
379: $\mu_7 a$& 0.1000 & 0.0756 & 0.0642 & 0.0553 & \\
380: \hline
381: \hline
382: &\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{PCAC definition ($\kcP$)}\\
383: \hline
384: $N_{\rm meas}$ & 400 & 300 & & 300 & \\
385: \hline
386: $\mu_1 a$& 0.0050 & 0.0038 & & 0.0028 &\\
387: $\mu_2 a$& 0.0100 & 0.0076 & & 0.0055 &\\
388: $\mu_3 a$& 0.0200 & 0.0151 & & 0.0111 &\\
389: $\mu_4 a$& 0.0400 & 0.0302 & & 0.0221 &\\
390: $\mu_5 a$& 0.0600 & 0.0454 & & 0.0332 &\\
391: $\mu_6 a$& 0.0800 & 0.0605 & & 0.0442 &\\
392: $\mu_7 a$& 0.1000 & 0.0756 & & 0.0553 &\\\hline
393: \hline
394: \end{tabular}
395: \end{center}
396: \caption{\it Simulation parameters and the number of measurements ($N_{\rm meas}$)}
397: \label{table:simpara}
398: \end{table}
399:
400: \begin{table}[!t]
401: \begin{center}
402: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
403: \hline
404: \hline
405: $\beta$ & 5.85 & 6.00 & 6.10 & 6.20 & 6.45 \\
406: \hline
407: \hline
408: &\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{$m_{\rm PS} a$ ($\kcpi$)}\\
409: \hline
410: $\mu_2 a$& 0.2240(33) & 0.1773(43)& 0.1482(27) & 0.1282(24)&0.0892(22)\\
411: $\mu_3 a$& 0.3117(23) & 0.2379(29)& 0.2030(21) & 0.1760(20)&\\
412: $\mu_4 a$& 0.4430(33) & 0.3337(22)& 0.2865(15) & 0.2472(16)&\\
413: $\mu_5 a$& 0.5523(23) & 0.4135(17)& 0.3534(13) & 0.3055(14)&\\
414: $\mu_6 a$& 0.6478(21) & 0.4840(16)& 0.4130(13) & 0.3561(12)&\\
415: $\mu_7 a$& 0.7349(21) & 0.5491(14)& 0.4676(12) & 0.4034(11)&\\
416: \hline
417: \hline
418: &\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{$m_{\rm PS} a$ ($\kcP$)}\\
419: \hline
420: $\mu_1 a$& 0.1640(24) & 0.1178(69) & & 0.0936(22) &\\
421: $\mu_2 a$& 0.2289(19) & 0.1686(50) & & 0.1278(20) &\\
422: $\mu_3 a$& 0.3231(14) & 0.2401(33) & & 0.1781(17) &\\
423: $\mu_4 a$& 0.4608(12) & 0.3422(23) & & 0.2495(13) &\\
424: $\mu_5 a$& 0.5703(11) & 0.4233(18) & & 0.3080(11) &\\
425: $\mu_6 a$& 0.6659(10) & 0.4943(15) & & 0.3588(10) &\\
426: $\mu_7 a$& 0.7532(9) & 0.5595(15) & & 0.4062(9) &\\
427: \hline
428: \hline
429: \end{tabular}
430: \end{center}
431: \caption{\it Pseudoscalar meson masses $m_{\rm PS} a$ for all simulation
432: points. These data refer to a subset of the data obtained in ref.~\cite{Jansen:2005kk}.
433: }
434: \label{table:mpi}
435: \end{table}
436:
437: \begin{table}[!t]
438: \begin{center}
439: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
440: \hline
441: \hline
442: $\beta$ & 5.85 & 6.00 & 6.10 & 6.20 & 6.45 \\
443: \hline
444: \hline
445: $Z^{\msbar}$ & 0.90(5) & 0.95(4) & 0.99(4) & 1.01(4) & 1.06(5) \\
446: \hline
447: \hline
448: &\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{$\langle x \rangle^{\rm bare,SF}$ ($\kcpi$)}\\
449: \hline
450: $\mu_2 a$& 0.2848(105) & 0.2143(107)& 0.2028(93) & 0.2073(103)&0.2226(108)\\
451: $\mu_3 a$& 0.3295(57) & 0.2818(56) & 0.2700(53) & 0.2621(49) &\\
452: $\mu_4 a$& 0.3643(37) & 0.3294(33) & 0.3144(28) & 0.2996(33) &\\
453: $\mu_5 a$& 0.3840(25) & 0.3533(24) & 0.3374(21) & 0.3215(26) &\\
454: $\mu_6 a$& 0.4012(20) & 0.3711(20) & 0.3551(17) & 0.3386(24) &\\
455: $\mu_7 a$& 0.4168(18) & 0.3861(17) & 0.3700(15) & 0.3539(20) &\\
456: \hline
457: \hline
458: &\multicolumn{5}{|c|}{$\langle x \rangle^{\rm bare}$ ($\kcP$)}\\
459: \hline
460: $\mu_1 a$&0.2566(157) & 0.2615(219) & & 0.2505(241)&\\
461: $\mu_2 a$&0.3049(80) & 0.2819(110) & & 0.2698(98) &\\
462: $\mu_3 a$&0.3420(39) & 0.3135(58) & & 0.2907(46) &\\
463: $\mu_4 a$&0.3704(24) & 0.3439(36) & & 0.3127(31) &\\
464: $\mu_5 a$&0.3900(18) & 0.3631(26) & & 0.3300(24) &\\
465: $\mu_6 a$&0.4077(15) & 0.3791(21) & & 0.3455(19) &\\
466: $\mu_7 a$&0.4237(13) & 0.3935(18) & & 0.3502(16) &\\
467: \hline
468: \hline
469: \end{tabular}
470: \end{center}
471: \caption{\it Renormalization factor $Z^{\msbar}\equiv Z_\mathrm{RGI}(a)/f^{\msbar}(\mu)$ for
472: $\mu=2$ {\rm GeV} from ref.~\cite{Guagnelli:2004ga} and bare matrix element
473: $\langle x \rangle^{\rm bare}$ for all simulation points.}
474: \label{table:xbare}
475: \end{table}
476:
477: \begin{table}[!t]
478: \begin{center}
479: \begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
480: \hline
481: \hline
482: $m_{\rm PS}$ [GeV] & $\langle x \rangle^{\msbar}$\\
483: \hline
484: \hline
485: $0.272^*$ &$0.260(31)^*$\\
486: 0.368 & 0.243(21)\\
487: 0.514 & 0.272(21)\\
488: 0.728 & 0.299(22)\\
489: 0.900 &0.317(23)\\
490: 1.051 &0.335(24)\\
491: 1.163 &0.350(25)\\
492: \hline
493: \hline
494: \end{tabular}
495: \end{center}
496: \caption{\it $\langle x \rangle^{\msbar}$ in the continuum using a combined
497: extrapolation of data obtained with the PCAC and pion definition of
498: $\kappa_c$.$^*$The value corresponding to a pseudoscalar meson mass of
499: 272 MeV has not been corrected for FSE.}
500: \label{table:cont}
501: \end{table}
502:
503: We performed simulations at different values of the twisted mass parameter
504: $\mu$ while setting $m_0$ to its critical value as obtained
505: from the pion or the PCAC definition. The corresponding critical hopping
506: parameters can be found in ref.~\cite{Jansen:2005kk}. The results are
507: summarized in table \ref{table:mpi} for the pseudoscalar mass and
508: in table \ref{table:xbare} for the bare matrix element.
509:
510: The goal of this letter is to perform the continuum extrapolation of
511: $\langle x \rangle$ at a fixed value of $m_{\rm PS} r_0$, for a number of
512: values of $m_{\rm PS} r_0$. An interpolation of the values of
513: $\langle x \rangle$ to the chosen values of $m_{\rm PS} r_0$ is needed.
514: These values are close to the simulated ones, and so even a linear
515: interpolation is usually sufficient. By using the value of the force parameter
516: $r_0=0.5 \rm{~fm}$ \cite{Sommer:1993ce,Guagnelli:1998ud} to set the
517: scale, the lowest pseudoscalar meson mass that can be reached corresponds to
518: $m_{\rm PS}=272$ MeV (for which we have only data obtained with the PCAC
519: definition of $\kappa_c$). On the basis of the study performed in
520: ref.~\cite{Guagnelli:2004ww}, we expect finite size effects (FSE) in the matrix element
521: to be relevant for the smallest four quark masses
522: simulated. Extending the study of ref.~\cite{Guagnelli:2004ww} down to values of
523: $m_{\rm PS}L\simeq 2.7$ (for which the FSE can be as large as $13\%$),
524: we have corrected the matrix elements for these effects down to
525: the second smallest quark mass ($m_{\rm PS}$=368 MeV). For the
526: smallest quark mass, however, the sensitivity required to investigate FSE
527: is computationally very expensive and here
528: we present the corresponding points without corrections, with the purpose of
529: showing that, even for quantities more complicated to extract than meson
530: masses or decay constants, there are no problems of principle in reaching
531: small quark masses.
532:
533: In fig.~\ref{fig:me} we show the combined continuum extrapolation of
534: $\langle x\rangle$ obtained with the two definitions of $\kappa_c$,
535: already converted to the $\msbar$ scheme at $\mu=2$ GeV as explained
536: in the previous section, for a wide range of values of fixed pseudoscalar meson masses.
537: In principle, employing the renormalization factors obtained
538: with (untwisted) Wilson fermions O($a$) lattice
539: artifacts can be introduced, which are absent in the bare matrix elements. However this
540: kind of O($a$) effects are independent of the mass and of the definition
541: of the $\kappa_c$ used. Considering for example the case of the second
542: lowest mass $\mu_2$ ($m_{PS}=368$ GeV) in fig.~\ref{fig:me}
543: and performing a combined continuum fit of the type $A+B a/r_0 + C
544: (a/r_0)^2$ where $A$ and $B$ are the same for the two definitions of
545: $\kappa_c$ while $C$ is different, one finds that $B\approx 0$.
546: Since $B/A$ does not depend upon the mass it follows that in the
547: determination of the renormalization factors O($a$) lattice artifacts
548: are in practice negligible. We are thus justified in performing a
549: continuum extrapolation of the type $A+ C(a/r_0)^2$ and we can see from
550: fig.~\ref{fig:me} that the scaling of $\langle x\rangle$ is in agreement
551: with pure O($a^2$) cut-off effects for both definitions of the critical mass
552: and values of $\beta\geq 6.0$.
553: The slope of $\langle x\rangle$ as a function of $a^2$ appears to be
554: rather small for the PCAC definition of $\kappa_c$.
555: At $\beta=5.85$ and lower, lattice artifacts which increase with
556: $\mu$ are visible for the highest masses while, in analogy to what
557: observed in ref.~\cite{Jansen:2005kk}, by using the pion
558: definition of $\kappa_c$ O($a^2$) cut-off effects are enhanced at small
559: quark mass. Indeed, for the second
560: smallest pseudoscalar meson mass (the smallest one is absent with the pion
561: definition of $\kappa_c$), we performed an additional simulation at
562: $\beta=6.45$,
563: in order to have a better control on the
564: continuum extrapolation,
565: and we excluded the point at $\beta=6.0$ (which appears to be outside of the
566: scaling region).
567: Fig.~\ref{fig:me} nicely demonstrates that using
568: only this definition of the critical mass it is important to add the data
569: point at $\beta=6.45$ and this effect would be probably even worse at
570: the smallest pseudoscalar meson mass.
571:
572: \begin{figure}[htb]
573: \vspace{-0.0cm}
574: \begin{center}
575: \epsfig{file=plots/avx_scaling_1.ps,angle=270,width=0.8\linewidth}
576: \epsfig{file=plots/avx_scaling_2.ps,angle=270,width=0.8\linewidth}
577: \end{center}
578: \vspace{-0.0cm}
579: \caption{$\langle x \rangle^{\msbar}$ as a function of $(a/r_0)^2$ for different
580: values of the pseudoscalar meson mass.
581: \label{fig:me}}
582: \end{figure}
583:
584: In fig.~\ref{fig:continuum} and table \ref{table:cont} we present the
585: results for
586: $\langle x \rangle^{\msbar}(\mu=2 {\rm GeV})$ in the continuum as a
587: function of the pseudoscalar meson mass in GeV. The empty squares are our
588: values obtained earlier from a combined continuum extrapolation of Wilson
589: and clover-improved Wilson fermions data using the Schr\"odinger functional scheme
590: \cite{Guagnelli:2004ga}. As usual, such quenched simulations have to stop at a
591: pseudoscalar meson mass
592: of about 600 MeV. At such high masses it becomes very difficult, if not
593: impossible, to compare the simulation results to chiral perturbation theory
594: \cite{Bernard:2003rp,Chen:2001gr,Beane:2003xv} or to other phenomenological
595: predictions \cite{Leinweber:1998ej,Detmold:2001jb}, even when the results are
596: extrapolated to the continuum limit as done here.
597:
598: Fig.~\ref{fig:continuum} shows that
599: with Wilson twisted mass fermions, the large gap between pseudoscalar
600: meson masses of
601: about 600 MeV, as the lower bound for standard simulations, and the physical
602: value can be bridged. Quenched chiral perturbation theory predicts
603: \cite{Chen_priv} the absence of chiral logs for the matrix element studied in this letter,
604: but our present large error bars, and the lack of more data in the region ($m_{\rm PS} \lesssim 500$ MeV)
605: where chiral perturbation theory should be applicable, does not allow us to perform a
606: careful chiral extrapolation. We quote then as our final result
607: \be
608: \langle x \rangle^{\msbar} (2 {\rm GeV}) = 0.243(21)
609: \ee
610: given by the value at the next to smallest pion mass.
611:
612: \begin{figure}[htb]
613: \begin{minipage}{\linewidth}
614: %\vspace{-0.0cm}
615: \begin{center}
616: \epsfig{file=plots/cont_avx.ps,angle=270,width=0.8\linewidth}
617: \end{center}
618: %\vspace{-0.0cm}
619: \caption[For a LoF]{$\langle x \rangle^{\msbar}(\mu= \ 2 \ {\rm GeV})$ extrapolated to the continuum as a function of
620: the pseudoscalar meson mass. Squares are obtained from a combined continuum
621: extrapolation of earlier Wilson and clover improved Wilson simulations
622: {\protect\cite{Guagnelli:2004ga}}. The circles represent our results using
623: Wilson twisted mass fermions. For the empty circle at the smallest mass see
624: the text. The diamond represents the experimental
625: value as obtained from global fits \protect{\cite{Sutton:1991ay,Gluck:1999xe}}.
626: Recently a new analysis {\protect\cite{Wijesooriya:2005ir}} has been performed giving as a result
627: $\langle x \rangle^{\msbar}(\mu= \ 2.28 \ {\rm GeV}) = 0.217(11)$.
628: \footnote{We thank C. Roberts to bring this reference to our attention.}}
629: \label{fig:continuum}
630: \end{minipage}
631: \end{figure}
632:
633:
634: \section{Conclusions}
635:
636: In this letter we performed a test of Wilson twisted mass fermions for
637: interesting physical observables, the moments of parton distribution
638: function which are relevant in deep inelastic scattering.
639: So far, most investigations
640: of Wilson twisted mass QCD at small masses considered only 2-point
641: correlation functions. The present study is the first that investigates
642: 3-point correlators down to masses of order 250 MeV.
643: In particular, here we have studied the example of a twist-2 operator.
644: The matrix element of such a renormalized operator between pion states
645: $\langle x\rangle$ corresponds to the average momentum of the valence quark
646: distribution ({\it up} for example) in a pion.
647:
648: In the present work we employed two definitions of the critical
649: mass, the pion and PCAC definition \cite{Jansen:2005gf,Jansen:2005kk}.
650: The scaling of $\langle x\rangle$ is in agreement with the expected
651: O($a^2$) cut-off effects for both definitions of the critical mass.
652: We could perform a controlled continuum extrapolation of $\langle x\rangle$
653: down to pseudoscalar meson masses of about 270 MeV by combining the
654: data obtained
655: with the two definitions.
656: Of course, in principle, also overlap simulations are able to reach such
657: values of the pseudoscalar meson mass.
658: This will come, however, at a much higher
659: simulation cost \cite{Chiarappa:2004ry}.
660: Our final figure, fig.~\ref{fig:continuum}, clearly demonstrates that with our
661: present setup it is possible to
662: bridge the gap between large pseudoscalar meson mass values of 600
663: MeV and the physical value of the pion mass.
664:
665: \section{Acknowledgements}
666: We thank Stefan Sint for discussions.
667: The computer centers at NIC/DESY Zeuthen, NIC at Forschungszentrum
668: J{\"u}lich and HLRN provided the necessary technical help and computer
669: resources.
670: S.~C.~gratefully acknowledges support by Fonds zur F\"orde-\\rung der
671: Wissenschaftlichen Forschung in \"Osterreich, Project P16310-N08.
672: This work was supported by the DFG
673: Sonderforschungsbereich/Transregio SFB/TR9-03.
674: This work has been also supported in part by the EU Integrated
675: Infrastructure Initiative Hadron Physics (I3HP) under contract
676: RII3-CT-2004-506078.
677:
678: \bibliographystyle{JHEP}
679: \bibliography{3pt}
680:
681: \end{document}
682: