Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published bySkylar Munson Modified over 2 years ago

1
Dynamical 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?

2
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 m res 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

3
Results 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

4
Cost measurements

5
Recommendations 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 m res and tiny valence m res (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

6
Future 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

7
Allocations 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 24 3 £32 with RBC or UKQCD? Cost in Tflop-Years of 10K traj., of dyn. chiral ferm generation m (Mev)250300353500 VolumeN5N5 a (fm)Tflop-Y 24 3 £ 3260.111.30.750.460.16 28 3 £ 322.31.30.820.29 32 3 £ 323.82.21.350.47

8
Dynamical 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)250300353 (400)500 24 3 £ 64N 5 =8 Tflop-Y2.21.30.78 (0.54)0.27 m L3.34.04.7 (5.3)6.6

9
The Goal Overlap operator on the lattice Choice of H, e.g., H=H w (-M)= 5 D w (-M) We approximate (H) by rational function where P n (H), Q m (H) poly. in H of degree n and m

10
Representations 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

11
Continued Fraction Want solution to Use back-substitution – a 5D algorithm! Equivalent to solving

12
Alternative 5D (N&N) Naryanan&Neuberger 5D Operator. Want solution of Solve 5D problem

13
5D Domain Wall Domain wall action: 5D Domain wall kernel: with quark mass , and Integrate out L s -1 extra fields to obtain Here P is such that (P -1 ) 1 = q is the light fermion

14
Induced 4D action – truncated overlap Core piece of induced kernel: Case of i =1 In general: – Domain wall : H = H T = 5 D w /(2 + a 5 D w ), b 5 -c 5 =a 5 – Overlap: H = H w = 5 D w, b 5 -c 5 =0

15
Zolotarev vs. Tanh

16
Zoom in – Show approx errors

17
Maximum error as approx. range increases

18
Maximum error vs. L s

19
Comparisons Use RBC Dyn. N f =2 DWF, a=0.11fm, 16 3 £32, m =500 MeV 15 configs. Tune actions to same m - mass renorm. Metric – compare Cost (D_w apps) and rescaled m res Pion mass:

20
Operators `CF' = Cont frac. 'M' = Möbius 'Z'=Zolotarev, 'T'=tanh

21
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 m res m res just one matrix element of operator L

22
M res measurements per config

23
Density 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 m res Can have neg. m res

24
Cost measurements

26
Conclusions 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)

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google

Ppt on game theory operations research Ppt on db2 mainframes jobs Ppt on current account deficit in india Ppt on forest and wildlife resources in india Ppt on regional transport office delhi Download ppt on modern farming methods Ppt on different types of computer softwares for art Ppt on introduction to business communication Ppt on conservation of environment natural resources Ppt on web 2.0