1: \section{Numerical computation}\label{sec:lma}
2: The primary observables in our numerical computations
3: are the integrals $\hat \tau_\nu(\hat \lambda_\mathrm{min},\infty)$
4: defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:l2inf}). The lower
5: bound $\hat \lambda_\mathrm{min}$ is chosen
6: to ensure the reliability of the Monte Carlo
7: estimate (see below) and at the same time
8: to minimize the difference with $\hat {\chi}_{\nu}$.
9: The low energy constant $\Sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ is extracted
10: from a matching of the combinations in Eq.~(\ref{eq:difftau})
11: with the corresponding formulas in the effective theory.
12: Our final goal, the computation of
13: $(\hat {\chi}_{\nu_1}- \hat {\chi}_{\nu_2})$,
14: is then achieved by adding the small contribution
15: from the infrared tail analytically using the
16: functional form in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tauChPT}).
17:
18: \subsection{Numerical estimator}
19: The underlying chiral symmetry guarantees that
20: for every background gauge configuration the quark
21: propagator $S_m(x,y)$ (see Appendix~\ref{appa})
22: satisfies
23: \be
24: \sum_x {\rm tr}\, \Big[S_m(x,x)\Big] =
25: \frac{\nu}{m} + 2 \sum_x {\rm tr} \Big[P_c\, S_m(x,x)\, P_c\Big]
26: \ee
27: with $\nu$ being the absolute value of the topological charge of the
28: configuration and
29: $P_c$ the chiral projector into the chiral sector without zero
30: modes\footnote{In finite volume the probability of having
31: a configuration with zero modes in both chiralities is zero.}.
32: In this form, and once the topological charge is known, the calculation of
33: the quark condensate requires the computation of
34: the propagator in the sector without zero modes only~\cite{Hernandez:1999cu}.
35:
36: \noindent On reasonably large lattices the computation of
37: all eigenvalues of the Dirac operator or of the propagator
38: from every source point $x$ is
39: numerically unfeasible. It is quite standard, however,
40: to compute the quark propagator from a few fixed source points or to extract a
41: few low-lying eigenvectors. Let us assume
42: that once $\nu$ has been determined, a number $n$ of approximate
43: low-lying eigenvalues of $P_c D^\dagger DP_c$ and the corresponding eigenvectors is
44: computed by minimizing the Ritz functional starting from random vectors
45: generated with a Gaussian action, i.e. invariant under
46: space-time translations~\cite{Giusti:2002sm}.
47: The minimization is carried out until the approximated eigenvalues
48: have a relative error $\omega_k$ and satisfy
49: \begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:ritz}
50: P_c D^\dagger D P_c u_k & = &|\overline \lambda_k|^2 u_k+r_k\; ,\;\;\;(k=1,...,n)\; ;\\
51: (u_l,u_k) &= & \delta_{lk}\; ;\\
52: (u_l,r_k) &= & 0\;\; \forall (l,k)\; ,\;\;\;||r_k||\leq \omega_k |\overline \lambda_k|^2\; .
53: \end{eqnarray}
54: The propagator in the sector without zero modes can then be split
55: in a \emph{light} and a \emph{heavy} contribution as follows:
56: \be\label{eq:split}\displaystyle
57: P_c\, S_m(x,y)\, P_c = m\, \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{P_c \tilde{u}_k(x) u^\dagger_k(y) P_c}{(1-\overline a^2 m^2/4)|\overline \lambda_k|^2 + m^2} + P_c S^h(x,y)P_c \nonumber\; ,
58: \ee
59: where $ \tilde{u}_k$ is defined from $u_k$ as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:psitilde}). It is easy
60: to prove that, once averaged over the gauge configurations, the spin-color trace
61: of each
62: contribution on the right-hand side of Eq.~(\ref{eq:split}) is
63: translational invariant even if the $u_k$ are
64: only approximate eigenvectors, i.e. $\omega_k\neq 0$~\cite{Giusti:2002sm}. The condensate,
65: after the trivial contribution from the zero modes is subtracted, can then be decomposed as
66: \be\label{eq:condfin}
67: {\chi}_{\nu}= \frac{1}{V}
68: \sum_{x} \left\langle {\rm tr}\, \Big[S_m(x,x)\Big]\right\rangle_\nu - \frac{\nu}{m V}= \chi_\nu^l+\chi_\nu^h\; ,
69: \ee
70: where the heavy and the light contributions can be computed as
71: \bea
72: \chi_\nu^l & = & \frac{2\,m}{V} \sum_{k=1}^n \left\langle
73: \frac{1-\overline a^2|\overline \lambda_k|^2/4}{(1-\overline a^2 m^2/4)|\overline \lambda_k|^2 + m^2}\right\rangle_\nu\; ,
74: \label{eq:condhl}\\[0.25cm]
75: \chi_\nu^h & = & 2\, \left\langle {\rm tr}\left[P_c S^h(0,0)P_c \right]\right\rangle_\nu \; .\label{eq:condhh}
76: \eea
77: It must be stressed that Eq.~(\ref{eq:condfin}) {\it is exact independently on the values
78: of $\omega_k$ and the number of the extracted eigenvectors $n$}. By contrast, the statistical
79: variance of the estimator changes with $\omega_k$ and $n$. The local fluctuations of the
80: approximated eigenvectors $u_k(x)$ are enhanced on the r.h.s. of Eq.~(\ref{eq:split})
81: by the smallness of the denominator. Under the working assumption that they
82: are responsible for large variations in the trace of the local propagator,
83: the variance of the estimator in Eq.~(\ref{eq:condfin}) is greatly reduced with respect
84: to the one of ${\rm tr}\left[P_c S(0,0)P_c \right]$. Deep in the chiral regime
85: the probability of having a configuration with eigenvalues lying in the infrared tail of the
86: spectral density $\hat \rho(\lambda)$ is small but not negligible. The tail is poorly
87: sampled by the Monte Carlo while at the same time the smallness of the eigenvalues generates large
88: fluctuations in the light part of the condensate $\chi_\nu^l$. To overcame this problem
89: we replace $\chi_\nu^l$ with
90: \be
91: \tau_\nu^l = \frac{2\,m}{V} \sum_{k=1}^n \left\langle
92: \frac{1-\overline a^2|\overline \lambda_k|^2/4}{(1-\overline a^2 m^2/4)|\overline \lambda_k|^2 + m^2}
93: \theta(|\lambda_k| - \lambda_\mathrm{min})\right\rangle_\nu\; ,
94: \ee
95: in Eq.~(\ref{eq:condfin}), where $\theta$ is the usual
96: step function. The value of $\lambda_\mathrm{min}$
97: is chosen in such a way that only 5 eigenvalues
98: in all the Monte Carlo history of a given data set
99: are lower. The parameter $\Sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ is then
100: extracted by matching these observables with
101: the analogous ones in the effective theory. Eventually the chiral
102: condensate $\chi_\nu$ is computed by adding the small contribution from the
103: tail analytically using the formula in Eq.~(\ref{eq:tauChPT}).
104: When the latter is substantial the determination
105: of $\Sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ from differences of
106: $\hat \tau_\nu(\hat \lambda_\mathrm{min},\infty)$ is still correct,
107: but the value of $\chi_\nu$ is heavily affected by
108: the functional form used and therefore
109: it less interesting to us. In the following we only consider data sets
110: where the integral of the tail is at most 25 per cent of
111: $\tilde \chi_\nu$, and in most of the cases it is
112: less than 10 per cent. A positive side effect of this requirement is
113: that the computation of the eigenvalues does not have
114: to be very precise. The tail contribution in $\chi_\nu$ can, of course,
115: be reduced by increasing the statistics of the data set, i.e. sampling
116: part of the tail with confidence.
117:
118: This procedure complements for the case of the chiral condensate
119: the low-mode averaging (LMA) technique proposed in Ref.~\cite{Giusti:2004an}.
120: The latter has been successfully applied already to meson two-point
121: functions \cite{Giusti:2004an,Fukaya:2005yg,Ogawa:2005jn}, baryon two-point
122: functions \cite{Giusti:2005sx} and more recently to three-point functions for
123: the extraction of low-energy constants of the $\Delta S=1$ chiral effective
124: Hamiltonian \cite{Giusti:2006mh}.
125:
126: \subsection{Numerical experience}
127: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
128: \begin{table}[t]
129: \begin{center}
130: \begin{tabular}{|c| c c c c|c|c|}
131: \hline
132: lat & $\beta$ & $L/a$ & $L$ (fm) & $N_\mathrm{cfg}$ & $N^\nu_\mathrm{cfg}$ & $am$ \\
133: \hline
134: c1 & 5.8458 & 12 & 1.49 fm & 672 & 119, 205, 155, & 0.001, 0.003, 0.008,\\
135: & & & & & 104, 51, 29& 0.012 ,0.0016\\
136: \hline
137: c2 & 5.8458 & 16 & 1.98 fm & 488 & 49, 69, 82, & 0.000316, 0.000949, 0.00253, \\
138: & & & & & 72, 50, 54 & 0.00380, 0.00506 \\
139: \hline
140: c3 & 6.0 & 16 & 1.49 fm & 418 & 74, 137, 101, & 0.000612, 0.00184, 0.00490, \\
141: & & & & & 62, 27, 12 & 0.00735, 0.00980 \\
142: \hline
143: \end{tabular}
144: \caption{Parameters of the simulations: $\beta=6/g^2$ is the bare gauge coupling,
145: $L$ is the linear extent of the each lattice, $N_\mathrm{cfg}$ is the total number of
146: configurations generated, and $am$ are the bare quark masses considered. $N^\nu_\mathrm{cfg}$
147: refers to the subset of configurations with fixed topological charge for $\nu=0$--$5$.
148: }\label{tab:simul}
149: \end{center}
150: \end{table}
151: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
152: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
153: \begin{figure}[t]
154: \hspace{-0.25cm}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig/cond_hist12_m2_nu0.eps}
155: \hspace{-0.25cm}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig/cond_hist12_m2_nu1.eps}
156: \caption{Monte Carlo history for the run c1, $am=0.008$ and for the topological
157: sectors $\nu=0$ (left) and $\nu=1$ (right).
158: The first plot from the bottom shows the Monte Carlo history of the absolute value of the
159: smallest eigenvalue of $P_cD^\dagger D P_c$; the second one represents the condensate
160: (divided by the quark mass) computed without LMA (black-thin line) and
161: the sum $a^3(\tau_\nu^l + \chi_\nu^h)/(am)$ (magenta-thick line).
162: The third and the fourth show the Monte Carlo histories of
163: the heavy contribution $(a^3\chi_\nu^h)/am$ and the light one
164: $(a^3\tau_\nu^l)/am$, respectively. }\label{hist_c1}
165: \end{figure}
166: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
167: We have generated ensembles of gauge configurations
168: by standard Monte Carlo techniques with the Wilson gluon action
169: and periodic boundary conditions. The fermions are discretized with
170: the Neuberger--Dirac operator as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:neu}) with $s=0.4$.
171: A summary of the parameters of our runs are reported in Tab.~\ref{tab:simul}.
172: We have simulated three lattices with two different volumes (runs c1 and c2) and two
173: lattice spacings (runs c1 and c3). The linear extent always satisfies
174: $L \gtrsim 1.5$~fm, a size that we expect to be large enough
175: for a finite-size scaling study. This is suggested by the results in Ref.~\cite{Giusti:2003gf},
176: where for $L \gtrsim 1.5$~fm it was found a detailed agreement of the predictions of random matrix theory
177: for the low-lying eigenvalues of the Dirac operator with quenched QCD results. The values of the two lattice
178: spacings are chosen to guarantee the locality of the Neuberger operator~\cite{Hernandez:1998et}, and to be
179: in a range where discretization effects were found to be small in several
180: observables~\cite{Babich:2005ay,Wennekers:2005wa}. The quark masses for the lattice c1 are fixed to be roughly
181: in the interval $0.07\;\lesssim \;\mu\;\lesssim \;1.2$. For the lattice c2 the masses are such that
182: the values of $(mV)$ match those of c1. The masses for the lattice c3 are chosen so that
183: the dimensionless quantity $(mV/\hat Z_S r_0^3)$ is constant, where
184: $r_0=0.5$~fm is a widely used reference scale in quenched QCD
185: computations~\cite{Sommer:1993ce,Guagnelli:1998ud} and $\hat Z_S$
186: is the renormalization constant of the scalar density in the
187: RGI scheme which we have taken from Ref.~\cite{Wennekers:2005wa}.
188: The calculation of the topological charge, of the low-lying eigenvalues, and
189: of the quark propagator is performed following Ref.~\cite{Giusti:2002sm}. For each run
190: the low-mode averaging is implemented as described in the previous subsection with
191: $n=20$ and $\omega_k=0.05$. A posteriori we have verified that the highest eigenvalue
192: extracted satisfies $(\langle |\overline \lambda_{20}|\rangle \Sigma_\mathrm{eff} V) > 20$ for all lattices.
193:
194: In Fig.~\ref{hist_c1} we show a typical Monte Carlo history
195: for the smallest eigenvalue of the Neuberger operator, for the chiral condensate
196: with and without LMA and for the heavy and light contributions
197: separately. It is obtained from the run c1 for $\nu=0,1$ and $am=0.008$. A first observation is that the heavy part of
198: the condensate is very stable in all topological sectors. Moreover the quantity
199: ${\rm tr}\left[P_c S^h(0,0)P_c \right]/(am)$ is essentially independent on the quark mass
200: {\it configuration by configuration}. For all lattices, its largest relative deviation
201: that we have observed among different masses is roughly $10^{-3}$. We interpret this as
202: a consequence of the fact that $|\overline \lambda_{20}|\gg m$ configuration by configuration.
203: We thus expect that a further stabilization of the heavy contribution would not reduce the variance
204: of the condensate significantly. The Monte Carlo history of $\tau_\nu^l$ does not show
205: large spikes for all masses, and a statistical analysis is applicable. Some of the lighter
206: masses at lower
207: topologies, however, have been discarded (see Tab.~\ref{tab:res}) to satisfy the upper limit on the tail contribution
208: discussed in the previous subsection. As expected the light part fluctuates much more than the heavy one.
209: Large contributions
210: appear in coincidence with the lower values of $|\lambda_1^2|$ consistently with the expectations.
211: The Monte Carlo history of the local estimator ${\rm tr}\left[P_c S(0,0)P_c \right]$
212: has fluctuations which are much larger than those with LMA. Moreover for the lower topologies
213: extreme statistical fluctuations are observed for most of the masses considered,
214: which invalidate the statistical analysis of the sample. In the following the physics analysis
215: is carried out only on the data with LMA.
216: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
217: \begin{figure}[!ht]
218: \begin{center}
219: \includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{fig/cond12_5.8458_hl_m3.eps}
220: \caption{The quantities $a^2 \chi^h_{\nu}/m$ (bottom) and $a^3\chi^l_{\nu}$ (top) as a function of
221: $\nu$, for the second heaviest mass of the run c1 (black points) and run c2 (red points).}\label{fig:cond_h}
222: \end{center}
223: \end{figure}
224: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
225: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
226: \begin{figure}[!ht]
227: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig/cond12_5.8458.eps}
228: \hspace{-0.375cm}\includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{fig/cond12_5.8458_nolma.eps}
229: \caption{Results for $(a^3\chi_\nu)/am$ as a function of the quark mass, for the lattice c1 at several values of $\nu$.
230: The data on the left are obtained with low-mode averaging, while on the right we show the values computed with the local estimator.}\label{fig_cond}
231: \end{figure}
232: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
233:
234: In Fig.~\ref{fig:cond_h} we show
235: our results for the heavy and the light contributions to the chiral condensate as
236: a function of $\nu$ for the second heaviest mass of the runs c1 and c2. The heavy part divided
237: by the quark mass is weakly dependent on the topological charge and the volume.
238: The results for $a^3\chi^l_{\nu}$ at the corresponding masses are compatible.
239: This indicates that the light contribution is to a good approximation a function
240: of the variable $(mV)$. In addition, the $1/\nu$ behavior predicted close to the chiral limit
241: by the first Leutwyler--Smilga sum rule is reproduced qualitatively.
242: These observations, which are valid for all masses simulated, point to the fact that
243: the splitting between heavy and light contribution is such that the bulk of the heavy part behaves
244: essentially like
245: an ultraviolet divergence (i.e. volume and topology independent and linear in the mass),
246: while the light part scales with respect to topology, mass and volume essentially as predicted
247: by chiral perturbation theory. The analysis in the chiral effective theory in the previous
248: section suggests that these features are mostly volume independent.
249:
250: The effect of low-mode averaging can be appreciated
251: in Fig. \ref{fig_cond}, where we show $(a^3\chi_\nu)/am$
252: for $\nu=0$--$5$ as a function of the quark mass, with (left) and without (right)
253: LMA\footnote{At lower topologies and without LMA the average values
254: and their errors are only indicative since the statistical analysis is
255: invalidated by extreme statistical fluctuations.}. It is clear that
256: the variance reduction is much more effective for the sectors with lower topological charge, which are
257: dominated by infrared contributions. Nevertheless with LMA we still obtain a variance reduction of a
258: factor $\sim 2$ up to $\nu=5$ in all our runs.
259:
260:
261:
262:
263:
264:
265:
266:
267:
268: