2001/10/18 by Sara Collins, S. Collins, C. T. H. Davies +3 · 7 citations
Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Algorithm #Ambiguity #Computer science #High-Energy Particle Collisions Research #Mathematics #Particle physics #Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies #Physics #Programming language #Quantum Chromodynamics and Particle Interactions #hep-lat
paper · pdf · doi:10.1103/physrevd.67.014504
published in Physical review. D. Particles, fields, gravitation, and cosmology/Physical review. D. Particles and fields 67(1) (American Physical Society) · 19 pages revtex, 13 tables, 15 figures
arxiv created 2001/10/18 · openalex publication_date 2003/01/21 · arxiv updated 2009/11/30 · openalex created_date 2016/06/24 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
We report on an investigation of the LANL method for determining the O(a) improvement coefficient cA nonperturbatively. We find we are able to extract reliable estimates for the coefficient using this method. However, our study of systematic errors shows that for very accurate determinations of cA, the smearing function must be tuned to keep the O(a) ambiguity in cA fixed as \ensuremathβ varies. Consistency was found with previous results from the LANL group and (within fairly large errors) 1-loop perturbation theory; cA does not change significantly over the range \ensuremathβ=5.93--6.2. The big difference between our results and those of the ALPHA Collaboration, around \ensuremathβ=6.0, shows that the O(a) differences in cA between the different methods can be large. We find that the lattice spacing dependence of f_\ensuremathπ and the renormalized quark mass is much smaller using our values of cA compared to those of the ALPHA Collaboration.