next up previous contents index
Next: 4.4.4 XY Model Up: 4.4 Spin Models Previous: 4.4.2 Ising Model

4.4.3 Potts Model


The q-state Potts model  [Potts:52a] consists of a lattice of spins , which can take q different values, and whose Hamiltonian is

For q=2, this is equivalent to the Ising model. The Potts model is thus a simple extension of the Ising model; however, it has a much richer phase structure, which makes it an important testing ground for new theories and algorithms in the study of critical phenomena [Wu:82a].

Monte Carlo  simulations of Potts models have traditionally used local algorithms such as that of Metropolis,  et al. [Metropolis:53a], however, these algorithms have the major drawback that near a phase transition, the autocorrelation time (the number of sweeps needed to generate a statistically independent configuration) increases approximately as , where L is the linear size of the lattice. New algorithms have recently been developed that dramatically reduce this ``critical slowing down''  by updating clusters of spins at a time (these algorithms are described in Section 12.6). The original cluster algorithm of Swendsen and Wang (SW) was implemented for the Potts model [Swendsen:87a], and there is a lot of interest in how well cluster algorithms perform for this model. At present, there are very few theoretical results known about cluster algorithms,  and theoretical advances are most likely to come from first studying the simplest possible models.

We have made a high statistics study of the SW algorithm and the single cluster Wolff algorithm [Wolff:89b], as well as a number of variants of these algorithms, for the q=2 and q=3 Potts models in two dimensions [Baillie:90n]. We measured the autocorrelation time in the energy (a local operator) and the magnetization (a global one) on lattice sizes from to . About 10 million sweeps were required for each lattice size in order to measure autocorrelation times to within about 1 percent. From these values, we can extract the dynamic critical exponent z, given by , where is measured at the infinite volume critical point (which is known exactly for the two-dimensional Potts model).

The simulations were performed on a number of different parallel computers. For lattice sizes of or less, it is possible to run independent simulations on each processor of a parallel machine, enabling us to obtain 100 percent efficiency by running 10 or 20 runs for each lattice size in parallel, using different random number  streams. These calculations were done using a 32-processor Meiko  Computing Surface, a 20-processor Sequent  Symmetry, a 20-processor Encore  Multimax, and a 96-processor BBN GP1000 Butterfly , as well as a network of SUN workstations. The calculations ook approximately 15,000 processor-hours. For the largest lattice sizes, and , a parallel cluster algorithm was required, due to the large amount of calculation (and memory) required. We have used the self-labelling  algorithm described in Section 12.6, which gives fairly good efficiencies of about 70 percent on the machines we have used (an nCUBE-1 and a Symult S2010), by doing multiple runs of 32 nodes each for the lattice, and 64 nodes for . Since this problem does not vectorize, using all 512 nodes of the nCUBE gives a performance approximately five times that of a single processor CRAY X-MP,  while all 192 nodes of the Symult is equivalent to about six CRAYs. The calculations on these machines have so far taken about 1000 hours.

Results for the autocorrelation times of the energy for the Wolff and SW algorithms are shown in Figure 4.17 for q=2 and Figure 4.18 for q=3. As can be seen, the Wolff algorithm has smaller autocorrelation times than SW. However, the dynamical critical exponents for the two algorithms appear to be identical, being approximately and for q=2 and q=3 respectively (shown as straight lines in Figures 4.17 and 4.18), compared to values of approximately 2 for the standard Metropolis algorithm.

Figure 4.17: Energy Autocorrelation Times, q=2

Figure 4.18: Energy Autocorrelation Times, q=3

Burkitt and Heermann [Heermann:90a] have suggested that the increase in the autocorrelation time is a logarithmic one, rather than a power law for the q=2 case (the Ising model), that is, z = 0. Fits to this are shown as dotted lines in Figure 4.17. These have smaller values than the power law fits, favoring logarithmic behavior. However, it is very difficult to distinguish between a logarithm and a small power even on lattices as large as . In any case, the performance of the cluster algorithms for the Potts model is quite extraordinary, with autocorrelation times for the lattice hundreds of times smaller than for the Metropolis algorithm. In the future, we hope to use the cluster algorithms to perform greatly improved Monte Carlo simulations of various Potts models, to study their critical behavior.

There is little theoretical understanding of why cluster algorithms work so well, and in particular there is no theory which predicts the dynamic critical exponents for a given model. These values can currently only be obtained from measurements using Monte Carlo simulation. Our results, which are the best currently available, are shown in Table 4.6. We would like to know why, for example, critical slowing down is virtually eliminated for the two-dimensional 2-state Potts model, but z is nearly one for the 4-state model; and why the dynamic critical exponents for the SW and Wolff algorithms are approximately the same in two dimensions, but very different in higher dimensions.

Table 4.6: Measured Dynamic Critical Exponents for Potts Model Cluster Algorithms.

The only rigorous analytic result so far obtained for cluster algorithms was derived by Li and Sokal [Li:89a]. They showed that the autocorrelation time for the energy using the SW algorithm is bounded (as a function of the lattice size) by the specific heat , that is, , which implies that the corresponding dynamic critical exponent is bounded by , where and are critical exponents measuring the divergence at the critical point of the specific heat and the correlation length, respectively. A similar bound has also been derived for the Metropolis algorithm, but with the susceptibility exponent substituted for the specific heat exponent.

No such result is known for the Wolff algorithm, so we have attempted to check this result empirically using simulation [Coddington:92a]. We found that for the Ising model in two, three, and four dimensions, the above bound appears to be satisfied (at least to a very good approximation); that is, there are constants a and b such that , and thus , for the Wolff algorithm.

This led us to investigate similar empirical relations between dynamic and static quantities for the SW algorithm. The power of cluster update algorithms comes from the fact that they flip large clusters of spins at a time. The average size of the largest SW cluster (scaled by the lattice volume), m, is an estimator of the magnetization for the Potts model, and the exponent characterizing the divergence of the magnetization has values which are similar to our measured values for the dynamic exponents of the SW algorithm. We therefore scaled the SW autocorrelations by m, and found that within the errors of the simulations, this gave either a constant (in three and four dimensions) or a logarithm (in two dimensions). This implies that the SW autocorrelations scale in the same way (up to logarithmic corrections) as the magnetization, that is, .

These simple empirical relations are very surprising, and if true, would be the first analytic results equating dynamic quantities, which are dependent on the Monte Carlo  algorithm used, to static quantities, which depend only on the physical model. These relations could perhaps stem from the fact that the dynamics of cluster algorithms are closely linked to the physical properties of the system, since the Swendsen-Wang clusters are just the Coniglio-Klein-Fisher droplets which have been used to describe the critical behavior of these systems [Fisher:67a] [Coniglio:80a].

We are currently doing further simulations to check whether these relations hold up with larger lattices and better statistics, or whether they are just good approximations. We are also trying to determine whether similar results hold for the general q-state Potts model. However, we have thus far only been able to find simple relations for the q=2 (Ising) model. This work is being done using both parallel machines (the nCUBE-1, nCUBE-2, and Symult S2010) and networks of DEC, IBM, and Hewlett-Packard workstations. These high-performance RISC workstations were especially useful in obtaining good results for the Wolff algorithm, which does not vectorize or parallelize, apart from the trivial parallelism we used in running independent simulations on different processors.

next up previous contents index
Next: 4.4.4 XY Model Up: 4.4 Spin Models Previous: 4.4.2 Ising Model

Guy Robinson
Wed Mar 1 10:19:35 EST 1995