Information for 2+1 Transverse lattice.

The paper that discusses a lot of these results is now posted at Los Alamos: Transverse Lattice Approach to Light-Front Hamiltonian QCD.

Scans of parameter space.

All plots are in encapsulated postscript format.

• Small basis at mass=0, lambda_3=10.0. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value. The value of tau was fit.
  • zt0scan.out
  • Plot of fit criteria satisfied.
  • chi² contour plot
• Small basis at mass=0, lambda_3=10.0. Scale determined by fixing minimizing chi² (no lattice data used). The value of tau was fit.
  • zc0scan.out
  • Plot of fit criteria satisfied.
  • chi² contour plot
• Large basis at mass=0.032492, lambda_3=10.0. Scale determinedf by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value. The value of tau was fit.
  • tscan1.out
  • Plot of fit criteria satisfied.
  • chi² contour plot
• Large basis at mass=0.032492, lambda_3=10.0. Scale determined by fixing minimizing chi² (no lattice data used). The value of tau was fit
  • cscan1.out
  • Plot of fit criteria satisfied.
  • chi² contour plot
• Small basis at mass=0.032492, lambda_3=10.0. Scale determinedf by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value. The value of tau was fit.
  • ztscan1.out
  • Plot of fit criteria satisfied.
  • chi² contour plot
• Small basis at mass=0.032492, lambda_3=10.0. Scale determined by fixing minimizing chi² (no lattice data used). The value of tau was fit
  • zcscan1.out
  • Plot of fit criteria satisfied.
  • chi² contour plot

Scaling Trajectory.

All of the couplings are fit as a function of mass. Here, the strategy is to include as many criteria as possible in the fitting procedure.

• Small basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value.
  • zttraj1.out (file lost)
• Large basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value.
  • ttraj1.out
  • Various plots of results
• Small basis. Scale determined by fixing minimizing chi² (no lattice data used).
  • zctraj1.out
• Large basis. Scale determined by fixing minimizing chi² (no lattice data used). We have two runs corresponding to different ways of extrapolating.
  • ctraj1.out, earlier run. The states are sorted then extrapolated. This is the data that appears in Table 1 of the preprint.
  • Various plots of results
  • ctraj11.out, second run, The states are sorted then extrapolated then sorted again. This can make a difference for the third excited state in the C=-1 sector.

Scaling Trajectory with picky fit criteria.

In this case, I only use the c² for the lowest state in each charge conjugation sector. All of the couplings are fit as a function of mass.

• Small basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value.
  • ztbot1.out
• Large basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value.
  • tbot1.out

Scaling Trajectory with compromise fit criteria.

In this case, In this case I use something in between the two stategies above. All of the couplings are fit as a function of mass.

• Large basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value.
  • cretro1.out m²=0.25 datum missing.

Scaling Trajectory with new tau-interactions.

In this case, In this case I try to get as many states correct as possible.

• Small basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value.
  • ytraj10.out.
• Small basis. Scale determined by minimizing chi².
  • ztraj10.out.
  • ztraj11.out, another try with better starting values.
• Large basis, including a fit to Teper's spectrum along with the various Lorentz invariance criteria. Scale determined by minimizing chi²; errors chosen based on typical errors seen in earlier runs.
  • fitall01.out, small masses.
  • fitall02.out, medium masses.
  • fitall03.out, large masses.
  • Further tries for masses with poor chi² in the above: fitall04.out and fitall05.out.
• Large basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value.
  • straj10.out, small masses.
  • straj11.out, medium masses.
  • straj12.out, large masses.
  The following have a slightly modified extrapolation procedure, as well as slightly different criteria for roundness, for the heavy source potential.
  • straj20.out, small masses.
  • straj21.out, medium masses.
  • straj22.out, large masses.
  This is another try with the chi² errors chosen based on typical errors seen in earlier runs.
  • straj32.out, large masses.
• Large basis. Scale determined by minimizing chi².
  • ttraj10.out, small masses.
  • ttraj11.out, medium masses; ttraj13.out, rerun m²=0.032492.
  • ttraj12.out, large masses.
  The following have a slightly modified extrapolation procedure, as well as slightly different criteria for roundness, for the heavy source potential.
  • ttraj20.out, small masses.
  • ttraj21.out, medium masses.
  • ttraj22.out, large masses.
  This is another try with the chi² errors chosen based on typical errors seen in earlier runs. The subsequent runs are with different starting couplings.
  • ttraj30.out, small masses; second try ttraj40.out.
  • ttraj31.out, medium masses; second try ttraj41.out.
  • ttraj32.out, large masses; second try ttraj42.out; third try ttraj52.out. There seems to be a problem with the m²=0.14 and m²=0.19 data points. Perhaps the extrapolation procedure is getting confused? Further tries are also without success: ttraj43.out and ttraj44.out .

Scaling Trajectory with 1/K² term in extrapolation.

• Small basis. Scale determined by fixing 0^++ to Teper's value. I use "compromise" fit criteria.
  • ytraj20.out and a second try ytraj21.out with different starting values.
• Large basis Scale determined by minimizing chi². I use "compromise" fit criteria.
  • ttraj41.out, medium masses.