1 / 25

Gap domain wall fermions

Gap domain wall fermions. P. Vranas IBM Watson Research Lab. :. Memories. Chiral symmetry restoration. How much is the exponential rate of L s for chiral symmetry restoration? How does it depend on the lattice spacing (coupling)? First application of DWF was on the Schwinger model:.

yon
Download Presentation

Gap domain wall fermions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Gap domain wall fermions P. Vranas IBM Watson Research Lab P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  2. : Memories P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  3. Chiral symmetry restoration How much is the exponential rate of Ls for chiral symmetry restoration? How does it depend on the lattice spacing (coupling)? First application of DWF was on the Schwinger model: P. Vranas, PRD57 (1998) 1415 P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  4. At strong coupling Quenched QCD a-1 = 1 GeV R. Edwards, U. Heller, R. Narayanan, NPB 535 (1998) 403. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  5. Instantons a Lattice dislocations Zeroes of H(m0) and instantons R. Edwards, U. Heller, R. Narayanan, NPB 535 (1998) 403. Instantons > a Inactive Larger Brillouin zones Quenched QCD a-1 = 2 GeV * P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  6. : Being stubborn P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  7. Gap Domain Wall Fermions • Improve DWF in the region 1 GeV < a-1 < 2 GeV. • Since the problem occurs when H(m0) is small multiply the Botzman weight with: det[H(m0)] = det[D(-m0)] • This is the same as inserting Wilson fermions with heavy mass in the supercritical region (for example m0 = 1.9). I will use 2 flavors. • This will forbid zero crossings at m0 and therefore enlarge the gap and reduce the residual mass. • It will suppress instantons with size near the lattice spacing which are a lattice artifact (dislocations). • Must check that the added Wilson fermions: - have hadron spectrum above the cutoff and are therefore irrelevant. - do not break parity (Aoki phase). - allow crossings due to instantons/anti-instantons with sizes > a (active topology). P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  8. P.M. Vranas, NATO Workshop, (2000) 11, Dubna, Russia, hep-lat/0001006. P.M. Vranas, hep-lat/0606014. T. Izubuchi, C. Dawson, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) {\bf 106} (2002) 748. H. Fukaya, Ph.D. Thesis, Kyoto University, 2006, hep-lat/0603008. H. Fukaya et. al. hep-lat/0607020. H. Fukaya, S. Hashimoto,T. Kaneko, N. Yamada: Latt06, Chiral Symmetry 3. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  9. Scale • In order to compare DWF with GDWF I do quenched simulations at three lattice spacings: a-1= 1 GeV, 1.4 GeV and 2 GeV. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  10. Quenched DWF, GDWF scale matching • DWF data (diamonds) are from [RBC, PRD 69 (2004) 074502]. • Matching is better than 5%. • Use the rho to set the scale. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  11. GDWF DWF a-1 = 1 GeV a-1 = 1.4 GeV a-1 = 2 GeV P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  12. Eigenvalue distribution • Distribution of the 100 smallest eigenvalues from 110 independent configurations • Here a-1 = 1.4 GeV DWF GDWF P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  13. The heavy Wilson flavors • The pion (diamonds), rho (squares) and nucleon (stars) masses for 2 flavor dynamical Wilson flavors with mass = -1.9. The straight line marks the cutoff P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  14. No parity breaking • For two dynamical Wilson fermions with mass = -1.9. • They are outside the Aoki phase. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  15. The residual mass a-1 = 1.0 GeV a-1 = 1.4 GeV mf = 0.02 and m0 = 1.9 DWF a-1 = 2.0 GeV DWF GDWF P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  16. The residual mass dependence on mf Ls= 16 m0 = 1.9 GDWF P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  17. About that pion a-1 = 1.0 GeV a-1 = 1.4 GeV Ls= 16 m0 = 1.9 a-1 = 2.0 GeV GDWF P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  18. Pions in the rough seas I “imitate” a dynamical simulation with: Ls = 24, mf = 0.005, V = 16 x 32, m0 = 1.9, beta=4.6. I Find: • a-1 = 1.356(75) GeV evaluated at mf . • mres = 0.00064(4) which is about 10% of mf. • Finally: mpion = 140(40) MeV at mf = 0.005. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  19. Algorithmic and computational costs • Simple to implement as an extension of Wilson and DWF: Add the two force terms and the two HMC Hamiltonians. • For a 2 flavor DWF simulation it is an additional cost of 2 Dirac operators and therefore an additional 1/Ls cost. For Ls = 24 this is about 5%. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  20. Net topology change • GDWF may reduce the net-topology sampling of the traditional HMC because it forbids smooth deformations of topological objects. The eigenvalue flow can not cross m0. • This is only an algorithmic issue. We need algorithms that can tunnel between topological sectors. • The same problem occurs in QCD anyway with or without GDWF. The QCD topological sectors are separated by energy barriers that become infinitely high as we approach the continuum. We have not been to small enough coupling yet in QCD to see the phenomenon. • GDWF resemble continuous QCD in this way even more. • In many cases net-topology change is not important provided one uses a large enough volume (see H. Leutwyler, A. Smilga, Phys. Rev D 46 (1992) 5607). • It is important to see crossings in the larger-instanton regime since they confirm a topologically active vacuum. The net index may be fixed but the appearance/disappearance of instantons/anti-instantons is a property of the QCD vacuum and has to be there. Obviously then for large enough volumes cluster decomposition ensures correct physics. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  21. An example from the Schwinger model P. Vranas PRD D57 (1998) 1415, hep-lat/9705023. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  22. Net topology is practically fixed P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  23. GDWF: V=163 x 32, b=4.6, a-1 = 1.4 GeV P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  24. Curious ponderings • An example of physics above the cutoff affecting the physics far below the cutoff. Do these “spectator” fermions point to something? • The log of the 2 flavor Wilson determinant is an irrelevant operator and therefore a valid addition to the pure gauge action. Thinking about it this way Gap Fermions (GF) can be applied to all related methods (overlap etc..) and improvements. • GDWF can be thought of as an extension of DWF by including the two additional Dirac operators along the fifth dimension diagonal behind the walls. This seems to be a natural extension of DWF with fermions beyond the walls that do not communicate directly with the fermions inside the walls. Their presence is felt only through their coupling to the gauge field in the bulk. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

  25. Open issues • H is the transfer matrix Hamiltonian for DWF with continuous 5th dimension. Here I used DWF with discrete 5th dimension. The two Hamiltonians have the same zeroes so this is not an issue. However, H may be more effective for overlap. Since the DWF Hamiltonian is exactly known one may want to use “augmented” heavy Wilson flavors to see if they provide even more improvement. • Although I used fairly large lattice spacings for the quenched study one must confirm with dynamical GDWF simulations. • Why only 2 heavy Wilson flavors? Why not more? What happens then? • GDWF may reduce the net-topology sampling of the traditional HMC. One can try instead of D2 the operator D2 + h2 where h2 is a real number. P. Vranas, IBM Watson Research Lab

More Related