 
  
  
  
  
 
To put QCD on a computer, we proceed as follows [Wilson:74a],
[Creutz:83a].  The four-dimensional 
space-time continuum is replaced by a four-dimensional hypercubic periodic 
lattice of size  , with the 
quarks living on the sites and the gluons living on the links of the lattice.
, with the 
quarks living on the sites and the gluons living on the links of the lattice.
 is the spatial and
 is the spatial and  is the temporal extent of the lattice.  The 
lattice has a finite spacing a.  The gluons are represented by
 is the temporal extent of the lattice.  The 
lattice has a finite spacing a.  The gluons are represented by 
 complex SU(3) matrices associated with each link in the 
lattice.  The 3 in SU(3) reflects the fact that there are three colors of 
quarks, and SU means that the matrices are unitary with unit determinant 
(i.e., ``special unitary'').  This link matrix describes how the color 
of a quark changes as it moves from one site to the next.  For example, as a 
quark is transported along a link of the lattice it can change its color 
from, say, red to green; hence, a red quark at one end of the link can 
exchange colors with a green quark at the other end.  The action functional 
for the purely gluonic part of QCD is
 complex SU(3) matrices associated with each link in the 
lattice.  The 3 in SU(3) reflects the fact that there are three colors of 
quarks, and SU means that the matrices are unitary with unit determinant 
(i.e., ``special unitary'').  This link matrix describes how the color 
of a quark changes as it moves from one site to the next.  For example, as a 
quark is transported along a link of the lattice it can change its color 
from, say, red to green; hence, a red quark at one end of the link can 
exchange colors with a green quark at the other end.  The action functional 
for the purely gluonic part of QCD is

where  is a coupling constant and
 is a coupling constant and

is the product of link matrices around an elementary square or plaquette on 
the lattice-see Figure 4.8.  Essentially all of the time in 
QCD simulations of gluons is spent multiplying these SU(3) matrices 
together.  The main component of this is the  kernel, which 
most supercomputers can do very efficiently.  As the action involves 
interactions around plaquettes, in order to satisfy detailed 
balance  we can update only half the links in any one 
dimension simultaneously, as shown in Figure 4.9 (in two dimensions 
for simplicity).  The partition function for full-lattice QCD including quarks 
is
 kernel, which 
most supercomputers can do very efficiently.  As the action involves 
interactions around plaquettes, in order to satisfy detailed 
balance  we can update only half the links in any one 
dimension simultaneously, as shown in Figure 4.9 (in two dimensions 
for simplicity).  The partition function for full-lattice QCD including quarks 
is

where  is a large sparse matrix  the
size of the lattice squared.  Unfortunately, since the quark or fermion
variables
 is a large sparse matrix  the
size of the lattice squared.  Unfortunately, since the quark or fermion
variables  are anticommuting Grassmann numbers, there is no
simple representation for them on the computer.  Instead, they must be
integrated out, leaving a highly non-local fermion determinant:
 are anticommuting Grassmann numbers, there is no
simple representation for them on the computer.  Instead, they must be
integrated out, leaving a highly non-local fermion determinant:

This is the basic integral one wants to evaluate numerically.
   
Figure 4.8: A Lattice Plaquette
   
Figure 4.9: Updating the Lattice
The biggest stumbling block preventing large QCD simulations with
quarks is the presence of the determinant  in the 
partition function.  There have been many proposals for dealing with the 
determinant.  The first algorithms tried to compute the change in the 
determinant when a single link variable was updated [Weingarten:81a].  
This turned out to be prohibitively expensive.  So instead, the approximate 
method of pseudo-fermions [Fucito:81a] was used.  
Today, however, the preferred approach is the so-called Hybrid Monte 
Carlo algorithm [Duane:87a], which is exact.  
The basic idea is to invent some dynamics for the variables in the system in 
order to evolve the whole system forward in (simulation) time, and then do a 
Metropolis accept/reject for the entire evolution on the basis of the total 
energy change.  The great advantage is that the whole system is updated in 
one fell swoop.  The disadvantage is that if the dynamics are not correct, 
the acceptance will be very small.  Fortunately (and this is one of very few 
fortuitous happenings where fermions are concerned), good dynamics can be 
found: the Hybrid algorithm [Duane:85a].  This is a neat combination 
of the deterministic microcanonical method [Callaway:83a], 
[Polonyi:83a] and the stochastic Langevin method [Parisi:81a], 
[Batrouni:85a], which yields a quickly evolving, ergodic algorithm for 
both gauge fields and fermions.  The computational kernel of this algorithm 
is the repeated solution of systems of equations of the form
 in the 
partition function.  There have been many proposals for dealing with the 
determinant.  The first algorithms tried to compute the change in the 
determinant when a single link variable was updated [Weingarten:81a].  
This turned out to be prohibitively expensive.  So instead, the approximate 
method of pseudo-fermions [Fucito:81a] was used.  
Today, however, the preferred approach is the so-called Hybrid Monte 
Carlo algorithm [Duane:87a], which is exact.  
The basic idea is to invent some dynamics for the variables in the system in 
order to evolve the whole system forward in (simulation) time, and then do a 
Metropolis accept/reject for the entire evolution on the basis of the total 
energy change.  The great advantage is that the whole system is updated in 
one fell swoop.  The disadvantage is that if the dynamics are not correct, 
the acceptance will be very small.  Fortunately (and this is one of very few 
fortuitous happenings where fermions are concerned), good dynamics can be 
found: the Hybrid algorithm [Duane:85a].  This is a neat combination 
of the deterministic microcanonical method [Callaway:83a], 
[Polonyi:83a] and the stochastic Langevin method [Parisi:81a], 
[Batrouni:85a], which yields a quickly evolving, ergodic algorithm for 
both gauge fields and fermions.  The computational kernel of this algorithm 
is the repeated solution of systems of equations of the form

where  and
 and  are vectors that live on the sites of the
lattice.  To solve these equations, one typically uses a conjugate
gradient  algorithm or one of its cousins,
since the fermion matrix
 are vectors that live on the sites of the
lattice.  To solve these equations, one typically uses a conjugate
gradient  algorithm or one of its cousins,
since the fermion matrix  is sparse.  For more
details, see [Gupta:88a].  Such iterative matrix algorithms have
as their basic component the
 is sparse.  For more
details, see [Gupta:88a].  Such iterative matrix algorithms have
as their basic component the  kernel, so again
computers which do this efficiently will run QCD well.
 kernel, so again
computers which do this efficiently will run QCD well.
 
 
  
  
  
 