1: 

2: \clearpage

3: 

4: %

5: %  Data runs in plaquette/rectangle plane

6: %

7: 

8: \begin{figure}

9: \begin{center}

10: \epsfig{file=PRfig-plaq_rect_plane.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

11: \caption{Parameters of $\beta_P$ and $\beta_R$ for quenched (circles)

12:   and $2$ flavor (squares) simulations with same lattice spacings and

13:   the choices for the parameters used for the simulations reported in

14:   this paper (diamonds).}

15: \label{fig:plaq_rect_plane}

16: \end{center}

17: \end{figure}

18: 

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: \begin{figure}

21: \begin{center}

22: \epsfig{file=rho_plaq_b72.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

23: \caption{Logarithm of the normalised autocorrelation

24:   function for the plaquette on the (D, 0.72 , 0.02/0.04) dataset.

25:   $\tau_{exp}$ is found from the slope at early $t$. }

26: \label{framework:plot:tint}

27: \end{center}

28: \end{figure}

29: 

30: 

31: \begin{figure}

32: \begin{center}

33: \epsfig{file=tint_pion_b72.eps, width=.8\textwidth}

34: \caption{Integrated autocorrelation time for the pseudoscalar meson on the

35:   DBW2 $\beta$=0.72 datasets with the longest single Monte Carlo

36:   chains. The separation for decorrelated configurations should be

37:   $2\tau_{\rm cum}$ and the measurement is made every 5 trajectories.}

38: \label{framework:plot:tint2}

39: \end{center}

40: \end{figure}

41: 

42: \begin{figure}

43: \begin{center}

44: \epsfig{file=static-cmp.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

45: \caption{Values for $r_0$ found for four choices of the time variable $t$ in 

46: Eq.~(\ref{eq:v_r_t}).  These show that a reasonable plateau has been reached 

47: by $t=5$, the value we adopt to determine $r_0$.}

48: \label{fig:plateaux}

49: \end{center}

50: \end{figure}

51: 

52: \begin{figure}

53: \begin{center}

54: \epsfig{file=beta072-DBW2-RHMC.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

55: \caption{Chiral extrapolation of the Sommer parameter $r_0$ to the limit

56: $m_{\rm u,d} = m_l + m_{\rm res} \rightarrow 0$ using results from the

57: three DBW2, $\beta=0.72$ ensembles with $m_l = 0.01, 0.02$ and 0.04.  

58: Extrapolations are shown using both the two lightest masses and all three.}

59: \label{fig:0.72_chiral}

60: \end{center}

61: \end{figure}

62: 

63: 

64: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

65: %

66: %  DBW2 b=0.72 0.01/0.04 evolution of the plaquette, pbp, pbg5p

67: %  and topology

68: %

69: \begin{figure}

70: \begin{center}

71: \epsfig{file=dbw20.72_topo_0.01-all.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

72: \caption{From top to bottom, the panels give the time history of

73: the plaquette, $\langle \bar{q} q \rangle$ and $\langle \bar{q}

74: \gamma_5 q \rangle$ and the toplogical charge for the (D, 0.72,

75: 0.01/0.04) dataset.  The values plotted are measured every 5 time

76: units.}

77: \label{fig:dbw2_0.72_01_04_evol}

78: \end{center}

79: \end{figure}

80: %

81: 

82: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

83: %

84: %  DBW2 b=0.72 0.01/0.04 evolution of pbg5p with different smoothing

85: %  windows

86: %

87: \begin{figure}

88: \begin{center}

89: \epsfig{file=dbw20.72_topo_0.01-smear.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

90: \caption{The time history of $\langle \bar{q} \gamma_5 q \rangle$

91: is shown for the (D, 0.72, 0.01/0.04) dataset, with different sizes

92: for the smoothing window.  If a smoothing window of size $s$ is

93: used, the data plotted at time unit $n$ is an average of data from

94: $n - s/2$ to $n + s/2 - 1$.  From top to bottom, the panels have a

95: smoothing window of size 25, 50, 100 and 200 time units. }

96: \label{fig:dbw2_0.72_01_04_pbg5p_evol}

97: \end{center}

98: \end{figure}

99: 

100: 

101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

102: %

103: %  DBW2 b=0.72 0.01/0.04 comparison of topological charge evolution

104: %  with smoothed pbg5p 

105: %

106: \begin{figure}

107: \begin{center}

108: \epsfig{file=dbw20.72_topo_0.01-cmp.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

109: \caption{The time history of the topological charge and

110: $\langle \bar{q} \gamma_5 q \rangle$, with a smoothing window of

111: 50, is shown for the (D, 0.72, 0.01/0.04) dataset.

112: The evolutions are very similar.}

113: \label{fig:dbw2_0.72_01_04_tcharge_pbg5p_compare}

114: \end{center}

115: \end{figure}

116: %

117: 

118: \begin{figure}

119: \begin{center}

120: \epsfig{file=topo_cmp-cmp_methods_history.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

121: \caption{Comparison of the 5Li and classically improved methods

122: of calculating the topological charge for $\sim 1000$ HMC trajectory

123: lengths on the (I, 2.13, 0.04/0.04) ensemble.\label{fig:topo_method_history}}

124: \end{center}

125: \end{figure}

126: 

127: \begin{figure}

128: \begin{center}

129: \epsfig{file=dbw20.72_topo-all.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

130: \caption{The distribution of the topological charge for (from top to bottom) the

131: (D,0.72,0.01/0.04), (D,0.72,0.02/0.04) and (D,0.72,0.04/0.04)

132: ensembles, taken from the classically improved method of 

133: calculating the topological charge.}

134: \label{fig:dbw20.72_tens}

135: \end{center}

136: \end{figure}

137: %

138: 

139: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

140: %

141: %  Qtop versus traj for plaq_rect runs.

142: %

143: \begin{figure}

144: \begin{center}

145:   \epsfig{file=PRfig-plaq_rect_top_charge_evol.eps,width=0.8\textwidth}

146:   \caption{The evolution of topological charge for

147:    the four simulations (D, 0.72, 0.04/0.04, R) (top panel),

148:   (C2.3, 0.48, 0.04/0.04, R), (C3.57, 0.32, 0.04/0.04, R), and (C7.47,

149:   0.16, 0.04/0.04, R) (bottom panel).}

150:   \label{fig:plaq_rect_top_charge_evol}

151: \end{center}

152: \end{figure}

153: 

154: 

155: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

156: %

157: %  Qtop versus traj for plaq_rect runs. at 

158: %  weaker coupling

159: %

160: \begin{figure}

161: \begin{center}

162: \epsfig{file=PRfig-plaq_rect_top_charge_evol_weak_coupling.eps,width=.8\textwidth}

163: \caption{The evolution of topological charge for

164:    the four simulations (C3.57, 0.32, 0.04/0.04, R)(top panel),

165:   (C3.57, 0.333, 0.04/0.04, R), (C3.57, 0.36, 0.04/0.04, R) and (C2.3,

166:   0.53, 0.04/0.04, R) (bottom panel). Note that the topology stops evolving as we go to weaker couplings.}

167:   \label{fig:plaq_rect_top_charge_weak_coupling}

168: \end{center}

169: \end{figure}

170: 

171: \begin{figure}

172: \begin{center}

173: \epsfig{file=top-comp.eps,width=.8\textwidth}

174: \caption{Representative topological charge histories for the (D,0.764), (D,0.78), (I,2.13) 

175: and (I,2.2) actions (top to bottom). As can be seen, the rate of topological charge tunnelling 

176: decreases both when moving between the Iwasaki and DBW2 actions, and when moving to smaller

177: lattice spacings.}

178: \label{fig:top_action_comp}

179: \end{center}

180: \end{figure}

181: 

182: 

183: 

184: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

185: %

186: %  pi eff mass from PP correlator for DBW2 RHMC beta=0.72 01/04 run

187: %

188: \begin{figure}

189: \begin{center}

190: \epsfig{file=dbw2_src-plot.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

191: \caption{The effective mass from the

192: pseudoscalar meson correlator for the (D, 0.72, 0.01/0.04)

193: ensemble with $m_l^{\rm val} = 0.01$ for different sources.  The top

194: panel shows four different source/sink combinations, the middle panel

195: is for a pseudoscalar meson correlator made of two SL quark propagators and the

196: bottom panel is the WL-WL case. 

197: \label{fig:b0.72_rhmc_01_04_mpi_src_compare_pp}}

198: \end{center}

199: \end{figure}

200: 

201: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 

202: %

203: %  rho eff mass for DBW2 RHMC beta=0.72 01/04 run

204: %

205: \begin{figure}

206: \begin{center}

207: \epsfig{file=dbw20.72_vsrc-plot.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

208: \caption{The vector meson effective mass for the (D, 0.72, 0.01/0.04) ensemble

209: with $m_l^{\rm val} = 0.01$ for different sources. The top

210: panel shows four different source/sink combinations, the middle panel

211: is for a vector meson correlator made of two SL quark propagators and the

212: bottom panel is the WL-WL case.}

213: \label{fig:b0.72_rhmc_01_04_mrho_src_compare}

214: \end{center}

215: \end{figure}

216: 

217: 

218: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

219: %

220: % smearing radius comparison

221: %

222: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

223: \begin{figure}

224: \begin{center}

225: \epsfig{file=SMEAR_TEST_V_b10.eps, width=.8\textwidth}

226: \caption{Comparison of smearing functions for a vector meson constructed from 

227:   valence quarks with mass $m=0.04$ using 

228:   72 Iwasaki $\beta=2.2$ configurations with

229:   $m_{l}=0.02$ and $m_{s}=0.04$. 10 configurations were averaged into

230:   each bin and then a full correlated analysis performed on the binned

231:   data.

232: \label{ch6:plot:smearing}}

233: \end{center}

234: \end{figure}

235: 

236: 

237: \begin{figure}

238: \begin{center}

239: \epsfig{file=N_B72_f21.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

240: \caption{Nucleon effective mass

241:   plot for the (D, 0.72, 0.02/0.04) dataset. Circles correspond to

242:   the WL-WL-WL calculations, the squares for the SL-SL-SL calculations.}

243: \label{ch6:fig:nuc}

244: \end{center}

245: \end{figure}

246: %

247: \clearpage

248: 

249: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

250: %

251: %  R(t) versus t for DBW2 RHMC beta=0.72 01/04 run comparing LL and WL

252: %

253: \begin{figure}

254: \begin{center}

255: \epsfig{file=dbw20.72_mres_plat_0.01_LW-plot.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

256: \caption{The ratio $R(t)$ that determines $\mres$ for the

257: (D, 0.72, 0.01/0.04) ensemble, for pseudoscalars made from LL

258: quark propagators and WL quark propagators.}

259: \label{fig:b0.72_rhmc_04_rt_wl}

260: \end{center}

261: \end{figure}

262: 

263: \clearpage	

264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

265: \begin{figure}

266: \begin{center}

267: 	\epsfig{file=ZA_b72_mr05.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

268:         \caption{ $Z_{A}$ for the (D, 0.72, 0.02/0.04) dataset.

269:           Different colors correspond to the different smearings. The

270:           lines shown are a fit to the SL-SL plateau.

271: \label{ch6:fig:ZA}}

272: \end{center}

273: \end{figure}

274: 

275: 

276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

277: \begin{figure}

278: \begin{center}

279: 	\epsfig{file=AP__IW213_forfpi.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

280: \caption{The ratio $C_{AP}(t)/C_{PP}(t)$ versus time for

281:   the (I, 2.13, 0.02/0.04) and  (I, 2.13, 0.04/0.04)

282:   datasets. The lines shown

283:   are the tanh fit to the LL-LL correlators. }

284: \label{ch6:fig:fpi3}

285: \end{center}

286: \end{figure}

287: 

288: \clearpage	

289: 

290: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

291: \begin{figure}

292: \begin{center}

293: \epsfig{file=mres.eps, width=.8\textwidth}

294: \caption{The $m^{\prime}_{\rm res}$ dependence on $m_f$

295: for the DBW2 $\beta=0.72$ dataset. The solid symbols show

296: the unitary points used in linear extrapolation.}

297: \label{DBW2:mres}

298: \end{center}

299: \end{figure}

300: 

301: 

302: 

303: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

304: \begin{figure}

305: \begin{center}

306: \epsfig{file=dbw2_ps_extrap-mpi_lin.eps}

307: \caption{The linear extrapolation of $m_{P}^2$ for the unitary

308: ($m_{\rm val} = m_{l}$) points.}

309: \label{DBW2:psmass_sqr}

310: \end{center}

311: \end{figure}

312: 

313: \clearpage

314: \begin{figure}

315: \begin{center}

316: 	\epsfig{file=dbw2_chiral-simultNLO_0.005_0.02_mpi.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

317:         \caption{$m_P^2/(m_{\rm val}+m_{\rm res})$ from combined 

318:             fits to NLO PQ$\chi$PT for $m_P^2$ and $f_P$ on the 

319:             (D, 0.72, 0.01/0.04) and (D, 0.72, 0.02/0.04) ensembles. 

320:             The dashed symbols are excluded from the fits.\label{fig:simultNLO_mpi}}

321: \end{center}

322: \end{figure}

323: 

324: 

325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

326: \clearpage

327: \begin{figure}

328: \begin{center}

329: 	\epsfig{file=dbw2_chiral-simultNLO_0.005_0.02_fpi.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

330:         \caption{$f_P$ from combined 

331:             fits to NLO PQ$\chi$PT for $m_P^2$ and $f_P$ on the 

332:             (D, 0.72, 0.01/0.04) and (D, 0.72, 0.02/0.04) ensembles. 

333:             The dashed symbols are excluded from the fits.

334:             \label{fig:simultNLO_fpi}}

335: \end{center}

336: \end{figure}

337: 

338: \clearpage

339: \begin{figure}

340: \begin{center}

341: \epsfig{file=chiral_IW_PS.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

342: \caption{The chiral extrapolation of the pseudoscalar meson mass

343:         squared versus quark mass for the two Iwasaki ensembles.

344:         The horizontal dashed lines show the physical kaon mass

345:         in lattice units as set by $r_0$.

346: \label{fig:IWmPchiral}}

347: \end{center}

348: \end{figure}

349: 

350: \begin{figure}

351: \begin{center}

352: \epsfig{file=chiral_DBW2_V.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

353: \caption{The chiral extrapolation of the vector meson mass

354:         versus quark mass for the three DBW2 ensembles.

355:         The vertical dashed lines show half the strange 

356:         quark mass, enabling the $m_K^{\star}$ (horizontal lines)

357:         to be predicted from each ensemble.

358: \label{fig:DBW2mVchiral}}

359: \end{center}

360: \end{figure}

361: 

362: \begin{figure}

363: \begin{center}

364: 	\epsfig{file=chiral_N_DBW2.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

365: \caption{The chiral extrapolation of the nucleon ($N$) and its 

366:          negative parity partner ($N^\star$) for the DBW2 $\beta=0.72$ 

367:          and $\beta = 0.764$ datasets. 

368:  \label{fig:DBW2mNchiral}}

369: \end{center}

370: \end{figure}

371: 

372: \begin{figure}

373: \begin{center}

374: 	\epsfig{file=chiral_fP_IW.eps, width=0.8\textwidth}

375: \caption{The chiral extrapolation of the pseudoscalar decay constant

376: 	 versus quark mass for the three methods. The upper panel

377:          shows the Iwasaki $\beta=2.13$ dataset and the lower

378:          $\beta=2.2$.

379:  \label{fig:DBW2fPchiral}}

380: \end{center}

381: \end{figure}

382: 

383: \clearpage

384: \begin{figure}

385: \begin{center}

386: 	\epsfig{file=r0_mkstar_mrho.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

387: \caption{Ratio of $m_{K^{*}}/m_{\rho}$ versus $(a/r_0)^{2}$ for all the datasets. The dotted lines are calculated from the ratio of the experimental values.} 

388: \label{fig:r0kstar}

389: \end{center}

390: \end{figure}

391: 

392: \clearpage

393: \begin{figure}

394: \begin{center}

395: 	\epsfig{file=J_lin.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

396: \caption{Dependence of $m_{V}$ on $(m_{P})^2$.} 

397: \label{fig:J}

398: \end{center}

399: \end{figure}

400: 

401: \begin{figure}

402: \begin{center}

403: 	\epsfig{file=J.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

404: \caption{The J parameter on all the datasets.} 

405: \label{fig:J-2}

406: \end{center}

407: \end{figure}

408: 

409: 

410: 

411: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

412: \clearpage

413: \begin{figure}

414: \begin{center}

415: 	\epsfig{file=r0_scale_nuc.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

416: \caption{Scaling of the baryon spectrum with lattice spacing

417:  squared. Closed circles denote the nucleon, $N$, and open circles the

418:  negative parity partner, $N^{\star}$ at the chiral limit.

419: Black symbols denote the experimental values scaled

420: by appropriate factors of $r_0$, red symbols

421:  the DBW2 ($\beta=0.72, 0.764$) ensembles and blue symbols

422: the Iwasaki ($\beta=2.13,2.2$) ensembles.

423: The value of $r_0=0.5$fm was chosen to

424: give an indication of the experimental spectrum in these units.}

425: \label{fig:scalenuc}

426: \end{center}

427: \end{figure}

428: 

429: 

430: \begin{figure}

431: \begin{center}

432: \epsfig{file=Edinburghplot.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

433: \caption{The Edinburgh plot. Red symbols denote the DBW2 ensembles and

434:  blue symbols the Iwasaki ensembles.

435: The phenomenological curve derived from~\cite{Ono:1977ss}

436: has been shown to guide the eye. Experimental ratios and

437: the values obtained in the static quark limit,

438: where the hadron mass is equal to the sum of the valence quark masses,

439: are given by the starred points.}

440: \label{fig:edinburgh}

441: \end{center}

442: \end{figure}

443: 

444: 

445: 

446: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

447: \clearpage

448: \begin{figure}

449: \begin{center}

450: 	\epsfig{file=r0_fK_fpi.eps,width =.8\textwidth}

451: \caption{Ratio of $f_{K}/f_\pi$ for plotted against $(a/r_0)^{2}$ for all the $\beta$ values. The dotted lines are calculated from the ratio of the experimental values.} 

452: \label{fig:r0fKfpi}

453: \end{center}

454: \end{figure}

455: 

456: