From da49a6c8caeaf71a9e5f0c706557e5257375d2ef Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jaron Kent-Dobias Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 14:39:48 -0400 Subject: many changes --- data/cluster-size/cluster-size_2vector3d.dat | 7 +- data/cluster-size/cluster-size_3vector3d.dat | 7 +- fig_clusters_ising2d.eps | 42 +-- fig_correlation_collapse-hL.tex | 6 +- figs/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.gplot | 2 +- monte-carlo.pdf | Bin 211006 -> 189179 bytes monte-carlo.tex | 504 ++++++++++++--------------- 7 files changed, 261 insertions(+), 307 deletions(-) diff --git a/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_2vector3d.dat b/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_2vector3d.dat index b1d07b7..23f0d4f 100644 --- a/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_2vector3d.dat +++ b/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_2vector3d.dat @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ 8 2.20167 2511.88999999999987 501.841463414634 4.319170260792832 8 2.20167 5011.86999999999989 507.2258064516132 2.933977464671744 8 2.20167 10000. 511.98755186721996 0.012448132782592 + 16 2.20167 0.00001 243.1411744110428 2.431011634765824 16 2.20167 0.0000199526 252.5322712418263 2.520912407564288 16 2.20167 0.0000398107 253.76404465212622 2.537209270288384 @@ -60,6 +61,7 @@ 16 2.20167 2511.88999999999987 3997.2430278884435 39.557926898192385 16 2.20167 5011.86999999999989 4058.5870445344112 22.549504065769472 16 2.20167 10000. 4080.846774193549 13.085977988919296 + 32 2.20167 0.00001 986.1265014644081 9.859696529113087 32 2.20167 0.0000199526 984.3604448964771 9.837040297869311 32 2.20167 0.0000398107 1006.0389259506484 10.0341567143936 @@ -91,6 +93,7 @@ 32 2.20167 2511.88999999999987 32104.675889328064 287.3561132376064 32 2.20167 5011.86999999999989 32237.24899598392 234.80085736269413 32 2.20167 10000. 32511.387096774182 150.84190567831962 + 64 2.20167 0.00001 4064.1647201144015 40.60314739749683 64 2.20167 0.0000199526 3831.507650574287 38.19021513785344 64 2.20167 0.0000398107 4188.66782299095 41.814975126175746 @@ -122,6 +125,7 @@ 64 2.20167 2511.88999999999987 257573.15748031496 2009.5231733897626 64 2.20167 5011.86999999999989 256347.9367588931 2264.411607160324 64 2.20167 10000. 261751.60245901643 261.52246707172145 + 128 2.20167 0.00001 17218.50733331795 171.69256298001204 128 2.20167 0.0000199526 18378.8810154216 182.93576751172813 128 2.20167 0.0000398107 21719.71231105522 216.67560846000129 @@ -153,10 +157,11 @@ 128 2.20167 2511.88999999999987 2.0513495555555564e6 17998.436177113254 128 2.20167 5011.86999999999989 2.0773365813008118e6 12176.020058098631 128 2.20167 10000. 2.0781455720000006e6 11877.88158764109 + 256 2.20167 0.00001 99796.95495047965 993.0432408086118 256 2.20167 0.0000199526 118960.46114502712 1183.6311268166205 256 2.20167 0.0000398107 148297.9400047447 1477.7606331841905 256 2.20167 0.0000794328 194551.36132918936 1937.9314215910113 256 2.20167 0.000158489 251457.49189555127 2511.3250818634547 256 2.20167 0.000316228 324895.6469723896 3238.5258641571186 -256 2.20167 0.000630957 433035.5322706618 4330.322589835591 \ No newline at end of file +256 2.20167 0.000630957 433035.5322706618 4330.322589835591 diff --git a/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_3vector3d.dat b/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_3vector3d.dat index bcbdc89..30c9f63 100644 --- a/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_3vector3d.dat +++ b/data/cluster-size/cluster-size_3vector3d.dat @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ 8 1.44325 2511.88999999999987 497.873517786561 4.809981675440128 8 1.44325 5011.86999999999989 504.82995951416984 3.678634721823232 8 1.44325 10000. 507.7768595041316 2.980009383246336 + 16 1.44325 0.00001 216.68961952935527 2.166391254450176 16 1.44325 0.0000199526 219.48383212166758 2.192636421758976 16 1.44325 0.0000398107 219.69445132802866 2.195624944164864 @@ -60,6 +61,7 @@ 16 1.44325 2511.88999999999987 3962.0758620689653 38.27452665491456 16 1.44325 5011.86999999999989 4046.096 25.382901526335488 16 1.44325 10000. 4072.6788617886186 17.727087666458623 + 32 1.44325 0.00001 826.8353329757553 8.262531302096896 32 1.44325 0.0000199526 837.3603080731689 8.368123500691455 32 1.44325 0.0000398107 806.5711674789724 8.05936187572224 @@ -91,6 +93,7 @@ 32 1.44325 2511.88999999999987 31823.757462686564 309.3486080652411 32 1.44325 5011.86999999999989 32246.916996047406 235.3584664114299 32 1.44325 10000. 32426.70967741933 195.48239847224116 + 64 1.44325 0.00001 3300.994286090191 32.9843773669376 64 1.44325 0.0000199526 3377.702937935479 33.7408356099031 64 1.44325 0.0000398107 3339.950045898211 33.335401827794946 @@ -122,6 +125,7 @@ 64 1.44325 2511.88999999999987 258340.48031496076 1803.419695280816 64 1.44325 5011.86999999999989 260464.34136546188 1137.2822096961863 64 1.44325 10000. 258819.8306451612 1828.5416650933535 + 128 1.44325 0.00001 12447.981724311225 124.36513455760998 128 1.44325 0.0000199526 12928.512209922817 128.95709454925824 128 1.44325 0.0000398107 15446.982934044607 154.19837102476492 @@ -153,9 +157,10 @@ 128 1.44325 2511.88999999999987 2.0259372646048097e6 19879.654187178392 128 1.44325 5011.86999999999989 2.0418392758620698e6 19846.025820302737 128 1.44325 10000. 2.0769803904382477e6 9952.510969695437 + 256 1.44325 0.00001 60161.45099983107 599.3263746074542 256 1.44325 0.0000199526 77901.23797637496 777.8785821259203 256 1.44325 0.0000398107 101219.99686797833 1009.7149891387064 256 1.44325 0.0000794328 136260.0666018779 1358.5048457738978 256 1.44325 0.000158489 180213.0812666957 1798.52251791727 -256 1.44325 0.000316228 244606.69981441813 2439.4315712125995 \ No newline at end of file +256 1.44325 0.000316228 244606.69981441813 2439.4315712125995 diff --git a/fig_clusters_ising2d.eps b/fig_clusters_ising2d.eps index 829e12c..df82215 100644 --- a/fig_clusters_ising2d.eps +++ b/fig_clusters_ising2d.eps @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0 %%Title: fig_clusters_ising2d.tex %%Creator: gnuplot 5.2 patchlevel 2 -%%CreationDate: Thu Apr 26 20:22:42 2018 +%%CreationDate: Mon Apr 30 17:44:57 2018 %%DocumentFonts: %%BoundingBox: 50 50 542 252 %%EndComments @@ -441,7 +441,7 @@ SDict begin [ /Creator (gnuplot 5.2 patchlevel 2) % /Producer (gnuplot) % /Keywords () - /CreationDate (Thu Apr 26 20:22:42 2018) + /CreationDate (Mon Apr 30 17:44:57 2018) /DOCINFO pdfmark end } ifelse @@ -6376,8 +6376,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 2 V 60 2 V 59 2 V -.0323 g 9497 3093 M -7868 2598 L +.0323 g 7868 2598 M 59 9 V 59 1 V 59 -7 V @@ -6408,8 +6407,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 1 V 59 4 V 59 1 V -.0968 g 9644 3261 M -8015 2607 L +0 g .0968 g 8015 2607 M 60 0 V 59 5 V 59 -5 V @@ -6439,8 +6437,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 4 V 59 -3 V 32 1 V -.2258 g 9705 3204 M -8163 2620 L +0 g .2258 g 8163 2620 M 59 -14 V 59 21 V 59 11 V @@ -6468,8 +6465,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 7 V 59 5 V 3 0 V -.4839 g 9705 3008 M -8310 2639 L +0 g .4839 g 8310 2639 M 60 15 V 59 40 V 59 48 V @@ -6494,8 +6490,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 13 V 59 15 V 33 4 V -1 g 9705 2887 M -8458 2732 L +0 g 1 g 8458 2732 M 59 41 V 59 52 V 59 64 V @@ -8170,7 +8165,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 0 V 59 0 V 60 0 V -.0968 g 1394 823 M +0 g .0968 g 1394 823 M 59 -8 V 59 -6 V 60 13 V @@ -8201,7 +8196,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 60 0 V 59 0 V 34 0 V -.2258 g 1541 828 M +0 g .2258 g 1541 828 M 60 -11 V 59 2 V 59 24 V @@ -10260,7 +10255,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 -15 V 59 3 V 60 -5 V -.0236 g 4366 891 M +0 g .0236 g 4366 891 M 59 71 V 60 6 V 59 -56 V @@ -10291,7 +10286,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 60 10 V 59 -14 V 59 9 V -.0551 g 4478 889 M +0 g .0551 g 4478 889 M 59 17 V 59 136 V 59 -91 V @@ -11948,8 +11943,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 -3 V 60 3 V 59 2 V -.0323 g 9533 1301 M -7904 803 L +.0323 g 7904 803 M 59 3 V 59 1 V 60 -13 V @@ -11980,8 +11974,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 -5 V 59 5 V 59 1 V -.0968 g 9680 1462 M -8051 798 L +0 g .0968 g 8051 798 M 60 3 V 59 -8 V 59 8 V @@ -12010,8 +12003,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 9 V 59 -3 V 55 1 V -.2258 g 9705 1318 M -8199 803 L +0 g .2258 g 8199 803 M 59 6 V 59 -3 V 60 13 V @@ -12038,8 +12030,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 10 V 59 11 V 26 4 V -.4839 g 9705 1129 M -8346 796 L +.1219 g .4839 g 8346 796 M 60 8 V 59 40 V 59 43 V @@ -12063,8 +12054,7 @@ LCb setrgbcolor 59 27 V 59 22 V 56 13 V -1 g 9705 1002 M -8494 844 L +1 g 8494 844 M 59 58 V 59 59 V 60 66 V diff --git a/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.tex b/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.tex index bb0ee8b..f70bc37 100644 --- a/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.tex +++ b/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.tex @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ {\GNUPLOTspecial{" %!PS-Adobe-2.0 EPSF-2.0 %%Creator: gnuplot 5.2 patchlevel 2 -%%CreationDate: Thu Apr 26 20:22:42 2018 +%%CreationDate: Mon Apr 30 17:46:22 2018 %%DocumentFonts: %%BoundingBox: 0 0 246 151 %%EndComments @@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ SDict begin [ /Creator (gnuplot 5.2 patchlevel 2) % /Producer (gnuplot) % /Keywords () - /CreationDate (Thu Apr 26 20:22:42 2018) + /CreationDate (Mon Apr 30 17:46:22 2018) /DOCINFO pdfmark end } ifelse @@ -2335,7 +2335,7 @@ grestore end showpage }}% - \put(2709,140){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$hL^{-\beta\delta/\nu}$}}% + \put(2709,140){\makebox(0,0){\strut{}$hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}$}}% \put(360,1738){% \special{ps: gsave currentpoint currentpoint translate 630 rotate neg exch neg exch translate}% diff --git a/figs/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.gplot b/figs/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.gplot index bfda33f..1c3be1e 100644 --- a/figs/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.gplot +++ b/figs/fig_correlation_collapse-hL.gplot @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ data = "data/correlation.dat" set logscale xy set xrange [0.0005:200000] set ylabel offset 1.5,0 '$\tau L^{-z}$' -set xlabel '$hL^{-\beta\delta/\nu}$' +set xlabel '$hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}$' set format x '$10^{%T}$' set yrange [0.08:1.1] set nokey diff --git a/monte-carlo.pdf b/monte-carlo.pdf index a8dcab7..c80b3c2 100644 Binary files a/monte-carlo.pdf and b/monte-carlo.pdf differ diff --git a/monte-carlo.tex b/monte-carlo.tex index 222c5e8..bff5ffb 100644 --- a/monte-carlo.tex +++ b/monte-carlo.tex @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ \begin{document} -\title{An efficient cluster algorithm for spin systems in a symmetry-breaking field} +\title{A natural extension of cluster algorithms in arbitrary symmetry-breaking fields} \author{Jaron Kent-Dobias} \author{James P.~Sethna} \affiliation{Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA} @@ -96,78 +96,80 @@ \date\today \begin{abstract} - We introduce a generalization of the `ghost spin' representation of spin - systems that restores full symmetry group invariance in an - arbitrary external field via the introduction of a `ghost transformation.' - This offers a natural way to extend celebrated spin-cluster - Monte Carlo algorithms to systems in arbitrary fields by running the - ordinary cluster-flipping process on the new representation. For several - canonical systems, we show that this extension with field preserves the scaling of - dynamics so celebrated without field. + We generalize the `ghost spin' representation of spin systems to restore + full symmetry group invariance in an arbitrary external field via the + introduction of a `ghost transformation.' This offers a natural way to + extend celebrated spin-cluster Monte Carlo algorithms to systems in + arbitrary fields by running the ordinary cluster-building process on the new + representation. For several canonical systems, we show that this extension + preserves the scaling of dynamics celebrated in the absence of a field. \end{abstract} \maketitle Spin systems are important in the study of statistical physics and phase transitions. Rarely exactly solvable, they are typically studied by -approximation methods and numeric means. Monte Carlo methods are a common way -of doing this, approximating thermodynamic quantities by sampling the -distribution of systems states. For a particular system, a Monte Carlo -algorithm is better the faster it arrives at a statistically independent -sample. This is typically a problem at critical points, where critical slowing -down \cite{wolff_critical_1990} results in power-law divergences of any dynamics. Celebrated cluster -algorithms largely addressed this for many spin systems in the absence of -external fields by using nonlocal updates \cite{janke_nonlocal_1998} whose clusters undergo a percolation -transition at the critical point of the system \cite{coniglio_clusters_1980} and that in relatively small -dynamic exponents \cite{wolff_comparison_1989,du_dynamic_2006,liu_dynamic_2014,wang_cluster_1990}, -including the Ising, $\mathrm O(n)$ \cite{wolff_collective_1989}, and Potts -\cite{swendsen_nonuniversal_1987,baillie_comparison_1991} models. These +approximation and numeric methods. Monte Carlo techniques are a common way of +doing this, approximating thermodynamic quantities by sampling the +distribution of systems states. These Monte Carlo algorithms are better the +faster they arrive at a statistically independent sample. This typically +becomes a problem near critical points, where critical slowing down +\cite{wolff_critical_1990} results in power-law divergences of dynamic +timescales. Celebrated cluster algorithms largely addressed this for many spin +systems in the absence of symmetry-breaking fields by using nonlocal updates +\cite{janke_nonlocal_1998} whose eponymous clusters undergo a percolation +transition at the critical point of the system \cite{coniglio_clusters_1980} +and result in relatively small dynamic exponents \cite{wolff_comparison_1989, +du_dynamic_2006, liu_dynamic_2014, wang_cluster_1990}, including the Ising, +$\mathrm O(n)$ \cite{wolff_collective_1989}, and Potts +\cite{swendsen_nonuniversal_1987, baillie_comparison_1991} models. These algorithms rely on the natural symmetry of the systems in question under -global rotations, so the general application of external fields is not -trivial. Some -success has been made in extending these algorithms to systems in certain -external fields based on applying the ghost site representation -\cite{coniglio_exact_1989} of certain -spin systems that returns global rotation invariance to spin Hamiltonians at -the cost of an extra degree of freedom, but these results only allow the application of a narrow -category of fields -\cite{alexandrowicz_swendsen-wang_1989,destri_swendsen-wang_1992,lauwers_critical_1989,wang_clusters_1989}. -We show that the scaling of correlation -time near the critical point of several models suggests that this approach is -a natural one, e.g., that it extends the celebrated scaling of dynamics in -these algorithms at zero field to various non-symmetric perturbations. We also show, by a redefinition of the spin--spin coupling in a -generic class of such systems, systems with arbitrary external fields applied -can be treated using cluster methods. +global rotations of spins. Some success has been made in extending these +algorithms to systems in certain external fields by applying the `ghost site' +representation \cite{coniglio_exact_1989} of certain spin systems that returns +global rotation invariance to spin Hamiltonians at the cost of an extra degree +of freedom, but these results only allow the application of a narrow category +of fields \cite{alexandrowicz_swendsen-wang_1989, destri_swendsen-wang_1992, +lauwers_critical_1989, wang_clusters_1989}. We show that the scaling of +correlation time near the critical point of several models suggests that this +approach is a natural one, e.g., that it extends the celebrated scaling of +dynamics in these algorithms at zero field to various non-symmetric +perturbations. We also show, by a redefinition of the spin--spin coupling in a +generic class of spin systems, \emph{arbitrary} external fields can be treated +using cluster methods. Rather than the introduction of a `ghost spin,' our +representation relies on introducing a `ghost transformation.' Let $G=(V,E)$ be a graph, where the set of vertices $V=\{1,\ldots,N\}$ enumerates the sites of a lattice and the set of edges $E$ contains pairs of -neighboring sites. Let $R$ be a group acting on a set $X$, with the action -of group elements $r\in R$ on elements $s\in X$ denoted $r\cdot s$. $X$ is the +neighboring sites. Let $R$ be a group acting on a set $X$, with the action of +group elements $r\in R$ on elements $s\in X$ denoted $r\cdot s$. $X$ is the set of states accessible by a spin, and $R$ is the \emph{symmetry group} of -$X$. The set $X$ must admit a measure $\mu$ that is invariant under the action of $R$, e.g., for any -$A\subseteq X$ and $r\in R$, $\mu(r\cdot A)=\mu(A)$. This trait is shared by -the counting measure on any discrete set, or by any group acting by isometries -on a Riemannian manifold, such as $\mathrm O(n)$ on $S^{n-1}$ in the $\mathrm O(n)$ -model \cite{caracciolo_wolff-type_1993}. Finally, the subset of elements in $R$ of order two must act -transitively on $X$. This property, while apparently obscure, is shared by any -symmetric space \cite{loos_symmetric_1969} or by any transitive, finitely generated isometry group. In fact, all the examples listed here have spins spaces with natural -metrics whose symmetry group is the set of isometries of the spin spaces. -We put one spin at each site of the lattice described by $G$, so that the -state of the entire spin system is described by elements $\vec s\in X\times\cdots\times -X=X^N$. +$X$. The set $X$ must admit a measure $\mu$ that is invariant under the action +of $R$, e.g., for any $A\subseteq X$ and $r\in R$, $\mu(r\cdot A)=\mu(A)$. +This trait is shared by the counting measure on any discrete set, or by any +group acting by isometries on a Riemannian manifold, such as $\mathrm O(n)$ on +$S^{n-1}$ in the $\mathrm O(n)$ model \cite{caracciolo_wolff-type_1993}. +Finally, the subset of elements in $R$ of order two must act transitively on +$X$. This property, while apparently obscure, is shared by any symmetric space +\cite{loos_symmetric_1969} or by any transitive, finitely generated isometry +group. In fact, all the examples listed here have spins spaces with natural +metrics whose symmetry group is their set of isometries. We put one spin at +each site of the lattice described by $G$, so that the state of the entire +spin system is described by elements $\vec s\in X\times\cdots\times X=X^N$. The Hamiltonian of this system is a function $\H:X^N\to\R$ defined by \[ \H(\vec s)=-\!\!\!\!\sum_{\{i,j\}\in E}\!\!\!\!Z(s_i,s_j)-\sum_{i\in V}B(s_i), \] -where $Z:X\times X\to\R$ couples adjacent spins and -$B:X\to\R$ is an external field. $Z$ must be symmetric in its arguments and -invariant under the action of any element of $R$ applied to the entire lattice, that is, for any $r\in R$ and -$s,t\in X$, $Z(r\cdot s,r\cdot t)=Z(s,t)$. -One may also allow $Z$ to also be a function of the edge---for modelling -random-bond, long-range, or anisotropic interactions---or allow $B$ to be a -function of site---for applying arbitrary boundary conditions or modelling random fields. All the formal results of this paper hold equally -well for these cases, but we will drop the additional index notation for clarity. +where $Z:X\times X\to\R$ couples adjacent spins and $B:X\to\R$ is an external +field. $Z$ must be symmetric in its arguments and invariant under the action +of any element of $R$ applied to the entire lattice, that is, for any $r\in R$ +and $s,t\in X$, $Z(r\cdot s,r\cdot t)=Z(s,t)$. One may also allow $Z$ to also +be a function of edge---for modelling random-bond, long-range, or anisotropic +interactions---or allow $B$ to be a function of site---for applying arbitrary +boundary conditions or modelling random fields. The formal results of this +paper hold equally well for these cases, but we will drop the additional index +notation for clarity. \begin{table*}[htpb] \begin{tabular}{l||ccccc} @@ -193,42 +195,35 @@ well for these cases, but we will drop the additional index notation for clarity \label{table:models} \end{table*} -The goal of statistical mechanics as applied to these systems is to compute -expectation values of observables $A:X^N\to\R$. Assuming the ergodic -hypothesis holds (for systems with broken-symmetry states, it does not), the -expected value $\avg A$ of an observable $A$ is its average over every state -$\vec s$ -in the configuration space $X^N$ weighted by the probability $p(\vec s)$ of -that state appearing, or +The goal of statistical mechanics is to compute expectation values of +observables $A:X^N\to\R$. Assuming the ergodic hypothesis holds (for systems +with broken-symmetry states, it does not), the expected value $\avg A$ of an +observable $A$ is its average over every state $\vec s$ in the configuration +space $X^N$ weighted by the Boltzmann probability of that state appearing, or \[ \avg A =\frac{\int_{X^N}A(\vec s)e^{-\beta\H(\vec s)}\,\dd\mu(\vec s)} - {\int_{X^N}e^{-\beta\H(\vec s)}\,\dd\mu(\vec s)} + {\int_{X^N}e^{-\beta\H(\vec s)}\,\dd\mu(\vec s)}, \] where for $Y_1\times\cdots\times Y_N=Y\subseteq X^N$ the measure -$\mu(Y)=\mu(Y_1)\cdots\mu(Y_N)$ is the simple extension of the -measure on $X$ to a measure on $X^N$. These values are estimated by Monte -Carlo techniques by constructing a finite sequence of states $\{\vec -s_1,\ldots,\vec s_M\}$ such that +$\mu(Y)=\mu(Y_1)\cdots\mu(Y_N)$ is the simple extension of the measure on $X$ +to a measure on $X^N$. These values are estimated using Monte Carlo techniques +by constructing a finite sequence of states $\{\vec s_1,\ldots,\vec s_M\}$ +such that \[ - \avg A\simeq\frac1M\sum_{i=1}^MA(\vec s_i) + \avg A\simeq\frac1M\sum_{i=1}^MA(\vec s_i). \] Sufficient conditions for this average to converge to $\avg A$ as $M\to\infty$ are that the process that selects $\vec s_{i+1}$ given the previous states be Markovian (only depends on $\vec s_i$), ergodic (any state can be accessed), and obey detailed balance (the ratio of probabilities that $\vec s'$ follows - $\vec s$ and vice versa is equal to the ratio of weights for $\vec s$ and +$\vec s$ and vice versa is equal to the ratio of weights for $\vec s$ and $\vec s'$ in the ensemble). -While any several related cluster algorithms can be described for this -system, we will focus on the Wolff algorithm in particular -\cite{wolff_collective_1989}. We will first describe a generalized version of the celebrated Wolff algorithm -in the standard case where $B(s)=0$. After reflecting on the technical -requirements of that algorithm, we will introduce a transformation to our -system and Hamiltonian that allows the same algorithm to be applied with -nonzero, in fact \emph{arbitrary}, external fields. - -The Wolff algorithm proceeds in the following way. +While any of several related cluster algorithms can be described for this +system, we will focus on the Wolff algorithm \cite{wolff_collective_1989}. In +the absence of an external field, e.g., B(s)=0, the Wolff algorithm proceeds +in the following way. \begin{enumerate} \item Pick a random site and a random rotation $r\in R$ of order two, and add the site to a stack. @@ -249,98 +244,88 @@ The Wolff algorithm proceeds in the following way. \end{enumerate} When the stack is exhausted, a cluster of connected spins will have been rotated by the action of $r$. In order for this algorithm to be useful, it -must satisfy ergodicity and detailed balance. The probability $P(\vec s\to\vec -s')$ that the configuration $\vec s$ is brought to $\vec s'$ by the flipping -of a cluster formed by accepting rotations of spins via bonds $C\subseteq E$ -and rejecting rotations via bonds $\partial C\subset E$ is related to the -probability of the reverse process $P(\vec s'\to\vec s)$ by +must satisfy ergodicity and detailed balance. Ergodicity is satisfied since we +have ensured that the subset of elements in $R$ that are order two acts +transitively on $K$, e.g., for any $s,t\in X$ there exists $r\in R$ such that +$r\cdot s=t$. Since there is a nonzero probability that only one spin is +rotated and that spin can be rotated into any state, ergodicity follows. The +probability $P(\vec s\to\vec s')$ that the configuration $\vec s$ is brought +to $\vec s'$ by the flipping of a cluster formed by accepting rotations of +spins via bonds $C\subseteq E$ and rejecting rotations via bonds $\partial +C\subset E$ is related to the probability of the reverse process $P(\vec +s'\to\vec s)$ by \begin{widetext} \[ - \begin{aligned} \frac{P(\vec s\to\vec s')}{P(\vec s'\to\vec s)} - &=\prod_{\{i,j\}\in + =\prod_{\{i,j\}\in C}\frac{p_r(s_i,s_j)}{p_{r^{-1}}(s_i',s_j')}\prod_{\{i,j\}\in\partial C}\frac{1-p_r(s_i,s_j)}{1-p_{r^{-1}}(s'_i,s'_j)} - =\prod_{\{i,j\}\in - C}\frac{p_r(s_i,s_j)}{p_{r}(r\cdot s_i,r\cdot s_j)}\prod_{\{i,j\}\in\partial - C}\frac{1-p_r(s_i,s_j)}{1-p_{r^{-1}}(r\cdot s_i,s_j)} - \\ - &=\prod_{\{i,j\}\in - C}\frac{p_r(s_i,s_j)}{p_{r}(s_i,s_j)}\prod_{\{i,j\}\in\partial + =\prod_{\{i,j\}\in\partial C}e^{\beta(Z(r\cdot s_i,s_j)-Z(s_i,s_j))} - =\frac{e^{-\beta\H(\vec s)}}{e^{-\beta\H(\vec s')}} -\end{aligned} + =\frac{p_r(s_i,s_j)}{p_{r}(s_i,s_j)}\frac{e^{-\beta\H(\vec + s)}}{e^{-\beta\H(\vec s')}}, \] \end{widetext} -whence detailed balance is satisfied. Ergodicity is satisfied since we have -ensured that the subset of elements in $R$ that are order two acts -transitively on $K$, e.g., for any $s,t\in X$ there exists $r\in R$ such that -$r\cdot s=t$. Since there is a nonzero probability that only one spin is -rotated and that spin can be rotated into any state, ergodicity follows. - -The function of the algorithm described above depends on the fact that the -coupling $Z$ depends only on the relative orientation of the spins---global -reorientations by acting by some rotation do not affect the Hamiltonian. The -external field $B$ breaks this symmetry. However, this can be resolved. Define -a new graph $\tilde G=(\tilde V,\tilde E)$, where $\tilde V=\{0,1,\ldots,N\}$ -adds a new `ghost' site $0$ which is connected by +whence detailed balance is also satisfied. + +This algorithm relies on the fact that the coupling $Z$ depends only on +relative orientation of the spins---global reorientations do not affect the +Hamiltonian. The external field $B$ breaks this symmetry. However, it can be +restored. Define a new graph $\tilde G=(\tilde V,\tilde E)$, where $\tilde +V=\{0,1,\ldots,N\}$ adds the new `ghost' site $0$ which is connected by \[ \tilde E=E\cup\big\{\{0,i\}\mid i\in V\big\} \] -to all other sites. -Instead of assigning this ghost site a spin whose value comes from the set $X$, we -will assign it values in the symmetry group $s_0\in R$, so that the new -configuration space of the model is $R\times X^N$. We introduce a Hamiltonian -$\tilde\H:R\times X^N\to\R$ defined by +to all other sites. Instead of assigning the ghost site a spin whose value +comes from $X$, we assign it values in the symmetry group $s_0\in R$, so that +the configuration space of the new model is $R\times X^N$. We introduce the +Hamiltonian $\tilde\H:R\times X^N\to\R$ defined by \[ \begin{aligned} \tilde\H(s_0,\vec s) &=-\!\!\!\!\sum_{\{i,j\}\in E}\!\!\!\!Z(s_i,s_j) -\sum_{i\in V}B(s_0^{-1}\cdot s_i)\\ - &=-\!\!\!\!\sum_{\{i,j\}\in\tilde E}\!\!\!\!\tilde Z(s_i,s_j) + &=-\!\!\!\!\sum_{\{i,j\}\in\tilde E}\!\!\!\!\tilde Z(s_i,s_j), \end{aligned} \] -where the new coupling $\tilde Z:(R\cup X)\times(R\cup X)\to\R$ is defined for $s,t\in -R\cup X$ by +where the new coupling $\tilde Z:(R\cup X)\times(R\cup X)\to\R$ is defined for +$s,t\in R\cup X$ by \[ \tilde Z(s,t) = \begin{cases} Z(s,t) & \text{if $s,t\in X$} \\ B(s^{-1}\cdot t) & \text{if $s\in R$} \\ - B(t^{-1}\cdot s) & \text{if $t\in R$} + B(t^{-1}\cdot s) & \text{if $t\in R$}. \end{cases} \label{eq:new.z} \] -Note that this modified coupling is invariant under the action of group -elements: for any $r,s_0\in R$ and $s\in X$, +The modified coupling is invariant under the action of group elements: for any +$r,s_0\in R$ and $s\in X$, \[ \begin{aligned} \tilde Z(rs_0,r\cdot s) &=B((rs_0)^{-1}\cdot (r\cdot s))\\ - &=B((s_0^{-1}r^{-1})\cdot(r\cdot s))\\ - &=B((s_0^{-1}r^{-1}r)\cdot s)\\ &=B(s_0^{-1}\cdot s) =\tilde Z(s_0,s) \end{aligned} \] -The invariance $\tilde Z$ to rotations given other arguments follows from the -invariance properties of $Z$. - -We have produced a system that incorporates the field function $B$ whose -Hamiltonian is invariant to global rotations, but how does it relate to our -previous system, whose properties we actually want to measure? If $A:X^N\to\R$ -is an observable of the original system, one can construct an observable -$\tilde A:R\times X^N\to\R$ of the new system defined by +The invariance of $\tilde Z$ to rotations given other arguments follows from +the invariance properties of $Z$. + +We have produced a system incorporating the field function $B$ whose +Hamiltonian is invariant under global rotations, but how does it relate to our +old system, whose properties we actually want to measure? If $A:X^N\to\R$ is +an observable of the original system, we construct an observable $\tilde +A:R\times X^N\to\R$ of the new system defined by \[ \tilde A(s_0,\vec s)=A(s_0^{-1}\cdot\vec s) \] whose expectation value in the new system equals that of the original -observable in the old system. First, note that $\tilde\H(1,\vec s)=\H(\vec s)$. Since -the Hamiltonian is invarient under global rotations, it follows that for any -$g\in R$, $\tilde\H(g,g\cdot\vec s)=\tilde\H(g^{-1}g,g^{-1}g\cdot\vec -s)=\tilde\H(1,\vec s)=\H(\vec s)$. -Using the invariance properties of the measure on $X$ and introducing a -measure $\rho$ on $R$, it follows that +observable in the old system. First, note that $\tilde\H(1,\vec s)=\H(\vec +s)$. Since the Hamiltonian is invariant under global rotations, it follows +that for any $g\in R$, $\tilde\H(g,g\cdot\vec s)=\H(\vec s)$. Using the +invariance properties of the measure on $X$ and introducing a measure $\rho$ +on $R$, it follows that \[ \begin{aligned} \avg{\tilde A} @@ -372,154 +357,125 @@ measure $\rho$ on $R$, it follows that }{\int_{X^N}e^{-\beta\H(\vec s')}\dd\mu(\vec s') } - =\avg A + =\avg A. \end{aligned} \] -To summarize, spin systems in a field may be treated in the following way. +Using this equivalence, spin systems in a field may be treated in the +following way. \begin{enumerate} \item Add a site to your lattice adjacent to every other site. - \item Initialize a ``spin'' at that site that is a representation of a + \item Initialize a `spin' at that site whose value is a representation of a member of the symmetry group of your ordinary spins. \item Carry out the ordinary Wolff cluster-flip procedure on this new lattice, substituting $\tilde Z$ as defined in \eqref{eq:new.z} for $Z$. \end{enumerate} Ensemble averages of observables $A$ can then be estimated by sampling the value of $\tilde A$ on the new system. In contrast with the simpler ghost spin -representation, this form of the Hamiltonian mya be considered the ``ghost -transformation'' representation. +representation, this form of the Hamiltonian might be considered the `ghost +transformation' representation. + \section{Examples} \subsection{The Ising Model} -In the Ising model, spins are drawn from the set $\{1,-1\}$. The symmetry -group of this model is $C_2$, the cyclic group on two elements, which can be -conveniently represented by the multiplicative group with elements $\{1,-1\}$, -exactly the same as the spins themselves. The only nontrivial element is of -order two. Because the symmetry group and the spins are described by the same -elements, performing the algorithm on the Ising model in a field is very -accurately described by simply adding an extra spin coupled to all others and -running the ordinary algorithm. The ghost spin version of the algorithm has -been applied by several researchers previously -\cite{wang_clusters_1989,ray_metastability_1990,destri_swendsen-wang_1992,lauwers_critical_1989} +In the Ising model spins are drawn from the set $\{1,-1\}$. Its symmetry group +is $C_2$, the cyclic group on two elements, which can be conveniently +represented by a multiplicative group with elements $\{1,-1\}$, exactly the +same as the spins themselves. The only nontrivial element is of order two. +Since the symmetry group and the spins are described by the same elements, +performing the algorithm on the Ising model in a field is fully described by +just using the `ghost spin' representation. This algorithm has been applied +by several researchers \cite{wang_clusters_1989, ray_metastability_1990, +destri_swendsen-wang_1992, lauwers_critical_1989}. \subsection{The $\mathrm O(n)$ Model} -In the $\mathrm O(n)$ model, spins are described by vectors on the $(n-1)$-sphere, -so that $X=S^{n-1}$. The symmetry group of this model is $O(n)$, $n\times n$ -orthogonal matrices. The symmetry group acts on the spins by matrix -multiplication. The elements of $O(n)$ that are order two are reflections -about some hyperplane through the origin and $\pi$ rotations about any axis -through the origin. Since the former generate the entire group, the set of -reflections alone suffices to provide ergodicity. Computation of the coupling -of ordinary spins with the external field and expectation values requires a -matrix inversion, but since the matrices in question are orthogonal this is -quickly accomplished by a transpose. The ghost-spin version of the algorithm -has been used to apply a simple vector field by previous researchers -\cite{dimitrovic_finite-size_1991}. +In the $\mathrm O(n)$ model spins are described by vectors on the +$(n-1)$-sphere $S^{n-1}$. Its symmetry group is $O(n)$, $n\times n$ orthogonal +matrices, which act on the spins by matrix multiplication. The elements of +$O(n)$ of order two are reflections about hyperplanes through the origin and +$\pi$ rotations about any axis through the origin. Since the former generate +the entire group, reflections alone suffice to provide ergodicity. The `ghost +spin' version of the algorithm has been used to apply a simple vector field to +the $\mathrm O(3)$ model \cite{dimitrovic_finite-size_1991}. The method is +quickly generalized to spins whose symmetry groups other compact Lie groups. \subsection{The Potts \& Clock Models} -In both the $q$-state Potts and clock models, spins are described by -$\Z/q\Z$, the set of integers modulo $q$. The symmetry group of this model is the dihedral group -$D_q=\{r_0,\ldots,r_{q-1},s_0,\ldots,s_{q-1}\}$, the group of symmetries of a -regular $q$-gon. The element $r_n$ represents a rotation of the polygon by -$2\pi n/q$, and the element $s_n$ represents a reflection composed with a -rotation $r_n$. The group acts on the spins by permutation: $r_n\cdot -m={n+m}\pmod q$ -and $s_n\cdot m={-(n+m)}\pmod q$. Intuitively, this can be thought of -as the natural action of the group on the vertices of a regular polygon that have -been numbered $0$ through $q-1$. The elements of $D_q$ that are of order 2 are -all reflections and $r_{q/2}$ if $q$ is even, though the former can generate -the latter. While the reflections do not necessarily generate the entire group, for any -$n,m\in\Z/q\Z$ there -exists a -reflection that takes $n\to m$, ensuring -ergodicity. The elements of the dihedral group can be stored simply as an -integer and a boolean that represents whether the element is a pure rotation or a -reflection. The principle difference between the Potts and clock models is -that, in the latter case, the form of the coupling $Z$ allows a geometric -interpretation as being two-dimensional vectors fixed with even spacing along -the unit circle. - - -\subsection{Discrete (or Continuous) Gaussian Model} - -Though not often thought of as a spin model, simple roughening of surfaces can -be described in this framework. The set of states is the integers $\Z$ and its +In both the $q$-state Potts and clock models spins are described by elements +of $\Z/q\Z$, the set of integers modulo $q$. Its symmetry group is the +dihedral group $D_q=\{r_0,\ldots,r_{q-1},s_0,\ldots,s_{q-1}\}$, the group of +symmetries of a regular $q$-gon. The element $r_n$ represents a rotation by +$2\pi n/q$, and the element $s_n$ represents a reflection composed with the +rotation $r_n$. The group acts on spins by permutation: $r_n\cdot m={n+m}\pmod +q$ and $s_n\cdot m={-(n+m)}\pmod q$. This is the natural action of the group +on the vertices of a regular polygon that have been numbered $0$ through +$q-1$. The elements of $D_q$ of order 2 are all reflections and $r_{q/2}$ if +$q$ is even, though the former can generate the latter. While reflections do +not necessarily generate the entire group, their action on $\Z/q\Z$ is +transitive. + +\subsection{Roughening Models} + +Though not often thought of as a spin model, roughening of surfaces can be +described in this framework. Spins are described by integers $\Z$ and their symmetry group is the infinite dihedral group $D_\infty=\{r_i,s_i\mid -i\in\Z\}$, where the action of the symmetry on the spins $j\in\Z$ is given by $r_i\cdot -j=i+j$ and $s_i\cdot j=-i-j$. These are shifts by $i$ and reflection about the -integer $i$, respectively. The elements of order two are the reflections -$s_i$, which suffice to provide ergodicity as any integer can be taken to any -other in one step of this kind. The coupling is usually taken to be -$Z(i,j)=(i-j)^2$, though it may also be any function of the absolute -difference $|i-j|$. -Because random choices of integer will almost always result in energy -changes so big that the whole system is always flipped, it is better to select -random reflections about integers close to the average state of the system. -Continuous roughening models---where the spin states are described by real -numbers and the symmetry group is $\mathrm E(1)$, the Euclidean group for -one-dimensional space---are equally well described. A variant of the algorithm has been -applied without a field before \cite{evertz_stochastic_1991}. - - -%\begin{figure} -% \centering -% \input{fig_correlation} -% \caption{The autocorrelation time $\tau$ of the internal energy $\H$ for a $n=32\times32$ square-lattice Ising -% model simulated by the three nonzero field methods detailed in this paper. -% The top plot is for simulations at high temperature, $T=5.80225$, the middle -%plot is for simulations at the critical temperature, $T=2.26919$, and the -%bottom plot is for simulations at } -% \label{fig:correlation} -%\end{figure} +i\in\Z\}$, whose action on the spin $j\in\Z$ is given by $r_i\cdot j=i+j$ and +$s_i\cdot j=-i-j$. The elements of order two are reflections $s_i$, whose +action on $\Z$ is transitive. The coupling can be any function of the absolute +difference $|i-j|$. Because random choice of reflection will almost always +result in energy changes so large that the whole system is flipped, it is +better to select random reflections about integers close to the average state +of the system. A variant of the algorithm has been applied without a field +\cite{evertz_stochastic_1991}. -\section{Dynamic scaling} -No algorithm worthwhile if it doesn't run efficiently. Our algorithm, being an -extension of the Wolff algorithm, should be considered successful if it -likewise extends its efficiency in the systems that algorithm succeeds. The -Wolff algorithm succeeds at +\section{Dynamic scaling} +No algorithm is worthwhile if it doesn't run efficiently. This algorithm, +being an extension of the Wolff algorithm into a new domain, should be +considered successful if it likewise extends the efficiency of the Wolff +algorithm into that domain. -Cluster algorithms were celebrated for their small dynamic exponents $z$, -which with the correlation time $\tau$ scales like $L^z$, where $L=N^{-D}$. In -the vicinity of the critical point, the renormalization group predicts scaling -behavior for the correlation time of the form +At a critical point, correlation time $\tau$ scales with system size +$L=N^{-D}$ as $\tau\sim L^z$. Cluster algorithms are celebrated for their +small dynamic exponents $z$. In the vicinity of an ordinary critical point, +the renormalization group predicts scaling behavior for the correlation time +as a function of temperature $t$ and field $h$ of the form \[ - \tau=t^{-z\nu}\mathcal T(ht^{-\beta\delta},Lt^\nu) - =h^{-z\nu/\beta\delta}\mathcal T'(ht^{-\beta\delta},Lt^\nu). + \tau=h^{-z\nu/\beta\delta}\mathcal T(ht^{-\beta\delta},hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}). \] -If a given dynamics for a system at zero field results in scaling like -$t^{-z\nu}$, one should expect its natural extension in the presence of a -field to scale like $h^{-z\nu/\beta\delta}$. We measured the autocorrelation -time for the 2D square-lattice model at a variety of system sizes, -temperatures, and fields $B(s)=hs/\beta$ using methods here -\cite{geyer_practical_1992}. The resulting scaling behavior, plotted in -Fig.~\ref{fig:correlation_time-collapse}, is indeed consistent with the -zero-field scaling behavior. +If a given dynamics for a system at zero field results in scaling like $L^z$, +one should expect its natural extension in the presence of a field to scale +roughly like $h^{-z\nu/\beta\delta}$ and collapse appropriately as a function +of $hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}$. We measured the autocorrelation time for the $D=2$ +square-lattice model at a variety of system sizes, temperatures, and fields +$B(s)=hs/\beta$ using standard methods \cite{geyer_practical_1992}. The +resulting scaling behavior, plotted in +Fig.~\ref{fig:correlation_time-collapse}, is indeed consistent with an +extension to finite field of the behavior at zero field. \begin{figure} \centering \input{fig_correlation_collapse-hL} - \input{fig_correlation-temp} \caption{Collapses of the correlation time $\tau$ of the 2D square lattice - Ising model (top) along the critical - isotherm at various systems sizes $N=L\times L$ for $L=8$, $16$, $32$, $64$, $128$, and $256$ as a function of the renormalization - invariant $hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}$ and (bottom) in the low-temperature phase - at $L=128$ for various temperatures as a function of the invariant - $ht^{-\beta\delta}$. + Ising model along the critical isotherm at various systems sizes + $N=L\times L$ for $L=8$, $16$, $32$, $64$, $128$, and $256$ as a function + of the renormalization invariant $hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}$. The exponent + $z=0.30$ is taken from recent measurements at zero field + \cite{liu_dynamic_2014}. } \label{fig:correlation_time-collapse} \end{figure} -Since the formation and flipping of clusters is the hallmark of the Wolff -dynamics, another way to ensure that the dynamics with field scale like those without is -to analyze the distribution of cluster sizes. The success of the algorithm at -zero field is related to the way that clusters formed undergo a percolation -transition at models' critical point. -According to the scaling theory of percolation \cite{stauffer_scaling_1979}, the distribution of cluster sizes in a full decomposition of the system scales +Since the formation and flipping of clusters is the hallmark of Wolff +dynamics, another way to ensure that the dynamics with field scale like those +without is to analyze the distribution of cluster sizes. The success of the +algorithm at zero field is related to the fact that the clusters formed +undergo a percolation transition at models' critical point. According to the +scaling theory of percolation \cite{stauffer_scaling_1979}, the distribution +of cluster sizes in a full Swendsen--Wang decomposition of the system scales consistently near the critical point if it has the form \[ P_{\text{SW}}(s)=s^{-\tau}f(ts^\sigma,th^{-1/\beta\delta},tL^{1/\nu}). @@ -531,15 +487,14 @@ proportional to their size, or \begin{aligned} \avg{s_{\text{\sc 1c}}}&=\sum_ssP_{\text{\sc 1c}}(s)=\sum_ss\frac sNP_{\text{SW}}(s)\\ - &=t^{-\gamma}g(th^{-1/\beta\delta},tL^{1/\nu})\\ - &=L^{\gamma/\nu}\mathcal G(ht^{-\beta\delta},hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}) + &=L^{\gamma/\nu}g(ht^{-\beta\delta},hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}). \end{aligned} \] -For the Ising model, an additional scaling relation can be written. Since in -that case the average cluster size is the average squared magnetization, it -can be related to the scaling functions of the magnetization and -susceptibility per site by (with $ht^{-\beta\delta}$ dependence dropped) +For the Ising model, an additional scaling relation can be written. Since the +average cluster size is the average squared magnetization, it can be related +to the scaling functions of the magnetization and susceptibility per site by +(with $ht^{-\beta\delta}$ dependence dropped) \[ \begin{aligned} \avg{s_{\text{\sc 1c}}} @@ -554,36 +509,35 @@ We therefore expect that, for the Ising model, $\avg{s_{\text{\sc 1c}}}$ should go as $(hL^{\beta\delta})^{2/\delta}$ for large argument. We further conjecture that this scaling behavior should hold for other models whose critical points correspond with the percolation transition of Wolff clusters. -This behavior is supported by our numeric work along the critical isotherm for various Ising, Potts, and -$\mathrm O(n)$ models, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:cluster_scaling}. Fields for the -Potts and $\mathrm O(n)$ models take the form -$B(s)=(h/\beta)\sum_m\cos(2\pi(s-m)/q)$ and $B(s)=(h/\beta)[1,0,\ldots,0]s$ -respectively. As can be -seen, the average cluster size collapses for each model according to the -scaling hypothesis, and the large-field behavior likewise scales as we expect -from the na\"ive Ising conjecture. +This behavior is supported by our numeric work along the critical isotherm for +various Ising, Potts, and $\mathrm O(n)$ models, shown in +Fig.~\ref{fig:cluster_scaling}. Fields for the Potts and $\mathrm O(n)$ models +take the form $B(s)=(h/\beta)\sum_m\cos(2\pi(s-m)/q)$ and +$B(s)=(h/\beta)[1,0,\ldots,0]s$ respectively. As can be seen, the average +cluster size collapses for each model according to the scaling hypothesis, and +the large-field behavior likewise scales as we expect from the na\"ive Ising +conjecture. \begin{figure*} \input{fig_clusters_ising2d} \caption{Collapses of rescaled average Wolff cluster size $\avg s_{\text{\sc - 1c}}L^{-\gamma/\nu}$ as - a function of field scaling variable $hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}$ for a variety - of models. Critical exponents $\gamma$, $\nu$, $\beta$, and $\delta$ are - model-dependant. Colored lines and points depict values as measured by the - extended algorithm. Solid black lines show a plot of $f(x)=x^{2/\delta}$ - for each model. + 1c}}L^{-\gamma/\nu}$ as a function of field scaling variable + $hL^{\beta\delta/\nu}$ for a variety of models. Critical exponents + $\gamma$, $\nu$, $\beta$, and $\delta$ are model-dependant. Colored lines + and points depict values as measured by the extended algorithm. Solid + black lines show a plot of $g(0,x)\propto x^{2/\delta}$ for each model. } \label{fig:cluster_scaling} \end{figure*} -We have taken several disparate extensions of cluster methods to models in an -external field and generalized them to any model of a broad class. This new -algorithm has an elegant statement that involves the introduction of not a -ghost spin, but a ghost transformation. We provided evidence that extensions -deriving from this method are the natural way to extend cluster methods tithe -presence of a field, in the sense that it appears to reproduce the scaling -of the dynamics in a field that would be expected from renormalization group -predictions. +We have taken several disparate extensions of cluster methods to spin models +in an external field and generalized them to work for any model of a broad +class. The resulting representation involves the introduction of not a ghost +spin, but a ghost transformation. We provided evidence that algorithmic +extensions deriving from this method are the natural way to extend cluster +methods in the presence of a field, in the sense that they appear to reproduce +the scaling of dynamic properties in a field that would be expected from +renormalization group predictions. In addition to uniting several extensions of cluster methods under a single description, our approach allows the application of fields not possible under @@ -591,8 +545,8 @@ prior methods. Instead of simply applying a spin-like field, this method allows for the application of \emph{arbitrary functions} of the spins. For instance, theoretical predictions for the effect of symmetry-breaking perturbations on spin models can be tested numerically -\cite{jose_renormalization_1977} -\cite{blankschtein_fluctuation-induced_1982,bruce_coupled_1975,manuel_carmona_$n$-component_2000}. +\cite{jose_renormalization_1977, blankschtein_fluctuation-induced_1982, +bruce_coupled_1975, manuel_carmona_$n$-component_2000}. \begin{acknowledgments} \end{acknowledgments} -- cgit v1.2.3-54-g00ecf