dynamical chiral fermions the `grail’ – dyn. chiral fermions generation of dyn. chiral fermions...
TRANSCRIPT
Dynamical Chiral FermionsDynamical Chiral Fermions
The `Grail’ – dyn. chiral fermions Generation of dyn. chiral fermions configs
– RBC on the RIKEN QCDOC – Jan 05 (some %)– UKQCD on the UK QCDOC – Jan 05 (some %)– RBC on the US QCDOC – April 05 (probably some %)
Given certain existence of dyn. chiral configs via large scale simulations – NOT AN EXPLORATORY PROJECT
Good physics?– Good chiral control – no taste breaking, avoid valence smearing– C. Bernard in May SciDAC : DWF0 < MILC2 in “cost”– A question of when to jump to dyn. chiral ferm.
How to leverage off world efforts?
Which Action??Which Action??
LHPC/UKQCD - work with B. Joo, A. Kennedy, K. Orginos, U. Wenger Evaluate “cost” of various chiral ferm actions Consider only 5D inverters for use in force term in HMC No projection – have residual mass Decide by a metric – cost for fixed mres
Results being presented at RBC/UKQCD meeting
Goal: choose a common fermion action within RBC, UKQCD and LHPC for dyn. simulations Coordinate simulations – different lattice sizes??? Each group leverages off other for more resources (like MILC) Share the datasets - early access before public domain
ResultsResults
Chiral Fermion Working Group: Results:
Of actions tested, standard DWF Shamir is clear loser. Zolotarev Continued Fraction is ``winner’’ (caveats,
though). Second is rescaled Shamir DWF via Mobius (tanh) Zolo. DWF actions needed for final decision
Cost measurementsCost measurements
RecommendationsRecommendations
Chiral Fermion Working Group: Recommendations:
Suggest RBC (small) change to Mobius (force term and energy) Big picture – what to have for overlap induced kernel? If Wilson kernel used
Cont. Frac - optimal valence action! Nominal sea mres and tiny valence mres (Golterman & Shamir) Cross-over usage by overlap-ers Possible 4D pseudofermion HMC with Cont. Fract. for force term
If Shamir kernel used No cross-over to overlap Not optimal inverter Projection problematic???
Recommend Wilson kernel Continue to reduce chiral sym. breaking
FutureFuture Algorithms:
Pursue efficacy of projection and smearing 4D pseudofermion HMC Instead 5D HMC via Alternating-Schwarz??
Coordination: Prefer share configs internally. RBC – only available once public?
Collaborations: LHPC/UKQCD –
Code & analysis development – strong connection Major overlap on hadronic physics – work together?? UKQCD – wait and see
LHPC/UKQCD/RBC ?? Many issues raised
RBC/UKQCD Only agreed to share Columbia 2K nodes (Asqtad)
RBC and UKQCD cases Strong interest generated only from algorithm work
AllocationsAllocations Nominally Nuc. Phys. 1/3 of US
– By Apr 05 total 8 TFlops in US (currently 0.5 at JLab)– Use some % allocation of NP for dyn. chiral instead of staggered ?– E.g., finish a=0.13fm DWF/Asqtad and do instead dyn. chiral??
Propose a dyn. chiral m=300, 353, 500 MeV, 28^3x32, a=0.11fm
– Cost=2.4 TfY for 10k traj – use half (like MILC) – total 1.2 Tflop-Y– Possibly coordinate a 243£32 with RBC or UKQCD?
Cost in Tflop-Years of 10K traj., of dyn. chiral ferm generation
m(Mev) 250 300 353 500
Volume N5 a (fm) Tflop-Y
243£ 32 6 0.11 1.3 0.75 0.46 0.16
283£ 32 2.3 1.3 0.82 0.29
323£ 32 3.8 2.2 1.35 0.47
Dynamical Fermion - AllocationsDynamical Fermion - Allocations
Propose a dyn. chiral m=300, 353, 500 MeV, 24^3x64, a=0.11fm, L=2.64fm– Cost=2.35 TfY for 5k traj– Possibly coordinate with UKQCD, RBC & U.S. HEP?
Cost in Tflop-Years of 5K traj., of dyn. chiral ferm generation
m(Mev) 250 300 353 (400) 500
243£ 64 N5=8
Tflop-Y 2.2 1.3 0.78 (0.54) 0.27
m L 3.3 4.0 4.7 (5.3) 6.6
The GoalThe Goal
Overlap operator on the lattice
Choice of H, e.g., H=Hw(-M)=5 Dw(-M)
We approximate (H) by rational function where Pn(H), Qm(H) poly. in H of degree n and m
RepresentationsRepresentations
Partial Fraction: (``4D Overlap – Inner CG’’)
Alternative 5D (N&N) (hybrid of Cont. Frac and gauss int.) Continued Fraction – Euler representation, i determine
approx.
Equivalence transformations
Continued FractionContinued Fraction
Want solution to
Use back-substitution – a 5D algorithm!
Equivalent to solving
Alternative 5D (N&N)Alternative 5D (N&N)
Naryanan&Neuberger 5D Operator. Want solution of
Solve 5D problem
5D Domain Wall5D Domain Wall Domain wall action: 5D Domain wall kernel:
with quark mass , and
Integrate out Ls-1 extra fields to obtain
Here P is such that (P-1 )1 = q is the light fermion
Induced 4D action – truncated overlapInduced 4D action – truncated overlap
Core piece of induced kernel:
Case of i=1
In general:
– Domain wall: H = HT = 5 Dw /(2 + a5 Dw), b5-c5=a5
– Overlap: H = Hw = 5 Dw , b5-c5=0
Zolotarev vs. TanhZolotarev vs. Tanh
Zoom in – Show approx errorsZoom in – Show approx errors
Maximum error as approx. range increasesMaximum error as approx. range increases
Maximum error vs. LMaximum error vs. Lss
ComparisonsComparisons
Use RBC Dyn. Nf=2 DWF, a=0.11fm, 163£32, m=500 MeV
15 configs. Tune actions to same m- mass renorm.
Metric – compare Cost (D_w apps) and rescaled mres
Pion mass:
OperatorsOperators
`CF' = Cont frac. 'M' = Möbius 'Z'=Zolotarev, 'T'=tanh
Chiral Symmetry Breaking Chiral Symmetry Breaking
Defect of Ginsparg-Wilson relation
Using Overlap operator D(0)=(1/2)(1+5(H)) ,
L measures chiral symmetry breaking
Can show usual DWF mres
mres just one matrix element of operator L
MMresres measurements per config measurements per config
Density of EigenvaluesDensity of Eigenvalues
Compare EV’s of L
Tanh cumulative error saturates quickly
Zolo error can go negative!
Densities are what matters
Stretching Zolo approx. magnifies errors and mres
Can have neg. mres
Cost measurementsCost measurements
Cost measurementsCost measurements
ConclusionsConclusions
Results: Of actions tested, standard DWF Shamir is clear loser. Zolotarev Continued Fraction is ``winner’’ (caveats,
though). Second is rescaled Shamir DWF via Mobius (tanh) Zolo. DWF actions needed for final decision
Suspect need test of N&N 5D method (almost ready)