October 2010 - Comp-phys-alps-users

Fwd: Problem in ALPS 2.0b4 which does not occur in ALPS 1.3.3
by Matthias Troyer 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

Urs, can you please send your input files, especially the lattice file. Could you please also check whether the dirloop_sse_v1 code, which is the old code, works on your input? Matthias Begin forwarded message: > From: Sergei Isakov <isakov(a)itp.phys.ethz.ch> > Date: October 28, 2010 18:59:30 GMT+02:00 > To: Matthias Troyer <troyer(a)phys.ethz.ch> > Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] Problem in ALPS 2.0b4 which does not occur in ALPS 1.3.3 > > I don't really understand this output. I probably need that lattices-ug.xml file to check. Does dirloop_sse_v1 work? > > Best, > Sergei > > > On 28 Oct 2010, at 18:47, Matthias Troyer wrote: > >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> From: Urs Gerber ITP <gerberu(a)itp.unibe.ch> >>> Date: October 28, 2010 15:43:38 GMT+02:00 >>> To: comp-phys-alps-users(a)lists.phys.ethz.ch >>> Subject: [ALPS-users] Problem in ALPS 2.0b4 which does not occur in ALPS 1.3.3 >>> Reply-To: comp-phys-alps-users(a)lists.phys.ethz.ch >>> >>> Here are the files I use and the output I get: >>> >>> bilayer-test: >>> >>> LATTICE_LIBRARY="./../lattices-ug.xml"; >>> LATTICE="latticegraph square bilayer"; >>> MODEL_LIBRARY="./../models.xml"; >>> MODEL="spin"; >>> local_S=1/2; >>> L = 12; >>> Jxy0=1; >>> Jz0=3.3; >>> Jxy1=3.45; >>> Jz1=3.45; >>> THERMALIZATION=1000; >>> SWEEPS=1000; >>> beta=48; >>> {h0=7.5;} >>> >>> >>> bilayer-test.in.xml: >>> >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >>> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="ALPS.xsl"?> >>> <JOB xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://xml.comp-phys.org/2003/8/job.xsd"> >>> <OUTPUT file="bilayer-test.out.xml"/> >>> <TASK status="new"> >>> <INPUT file="bilayer-test.task1.in.xml"/> >>> <OUTPUT file="bilayer-test.task1.out.xml"/> >>> </TASK> >>> </JOB> >>> >>> output in the terminal: >>> >>> Quantum Monte Carlo simulations using the SSE algorithm v. 4.0 >>> available from http://alps.comp-phys.org/ >>> copyright (c) 2003-2010 by Sergei Isakov <isakov(a)itp.phys.ethz.ch> >>> >>> using the ALPS parallelizing scheduler >>> copyright (c) 1994-2006 by Matthias Troyer <troyer(a)comp-phys.org>. >>> see Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1505, p. 191 (1998). >>> >>> based on the ALPS libraries version 2.0.0b4 >>> available from http://alps.comp-phys.org/ >>> copyright (c) 1994-2010 by the ALPS collaboration. >>> Consult the web page for license details. >>> For details see the publication: >>> A.F. Albuquerque et al., J. of Magn. and Magn. Materials 310, 1187 (2007). >>> >>> parsing task files ... >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 >>> >>> Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 5. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 >>> >>> Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 5. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 >>> >>> Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 5. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 >>> >>> Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 5. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.001 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Model name: '' - run #1 >>> Objective: Minimize(R0) >>> >>> SUBMITTED >>> Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. >>> Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. >>> Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. >>> >>> Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. >>> >>> Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 >>> >>> Final solution 0 at iteration 6. >>> >>> Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 >>> >>> Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. >>> In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. >>> There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. >>> ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. >>> Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. >>> Created run 1 locally >>> Starting task 1. >>> >>> >>> After this it stops creating output in the terminal and no output files are produced. >>> >

4 7

FQHE: using non-Hermitian operators as constrains for ED
by Zohar Ringel 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

Dear ALPS developers, Some background on the problem I have: --------------------------------------------------- I wish to use the exact diag. application for the FQHE effect on a thin-torus. This can be mapped to a 1D problem on a ring which has both total momenta (P) and total center-of-mass conservation (X). In a ring the position (j), is actually ill defined, therefore I need to define X as a non-Hermitian operator $X = \sum_j e^{i 2\pi j/L} \psi^{\dagger}_x \psi_x$ instead. My questions are: ---------------------- 1. Could a non-Hermitian operator such as X, be given as a conserved quantum number to the exact/sparse diagonalization applications ? 2. For a ring geometry and when within an tag: may I use the site's name ("j") as though it is a variable which holds an integer denoting the position (I need this for the last definition of X). Thanks in advance, Zohar.

2 1

Problem in ALPS 2.0b4 which does not occur in ALPS 1.3.3
by Urs Gerber ITP 28 Oct '10

28 Oct '10

Here are the files I use and the output I get: bilayer-test: LATTICE_LIBRARY="./../lattices-ug.xml"; LATTICE="latticegraph square bilayer"; MODEL_LIBRARY="./../models.xml"; MODEL="spin"; local_S=1/2; L = 12; Jxy0=1; Jz0=3.3; Jxy1=3.45; Jz1=3.45; THERMALIZATION=1000; SWEEPS=1000; beta=48; {h0=7.5;} bilayer-test.in.xml: <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="ALPS.xsl"?> <JOB xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="http://xml.comp-phys.org/2003/8/job.xsd"> <OUTPUT file="bilayer-test.out.xml"/> <TASK status="new"> <INPUT file="bilayer-test.task1.in.xml"/> <OUTPUT file="bilayer-test.task1.out.xml"/> </TASK> </JOB> output in the terminal: Quantum Monte Carlo simulations using the SSE algorithm v. 4.0 available from http://alps.comp-phys.org/ copyright (c) 2003-2010 by Sergei Isakov <isakov(a)itp.phys.ethz.ch> using the ALPS parallelizing scheduler copyright (c) 1994-2006 by Matthias Troyer <troyer(a)comp-phys.org>. see Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1505, p. 191 (1998). based on the ALPS libraries version 2.0.0b4 available from http://alps.comp-phys.org/ copyright (c) 1994-2010 by the ALPS collaboration. Consult the web page for license details. For details see the publication: A.F. Albuquerque et al., J. of Magn. and Magn. Materials 310, 1187 (2007). parsing task files ... Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 5. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 Final solution 0.84127 at iteration 5. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 5. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 42 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 5 Final solution 0.465116 at iteration 5. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 5, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 5.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.001 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Model name: '' - run #1 Objective: Minimize(R0) SUBMITTED Model size: 18 constraints, 9 variables, 48 non-zeros. Constraints: 18 equality, 0 GUB, 0 SOS. Variables: 0 integer, 0 semi-cont., 0 SOS. Using DUAL simplex for phase 1 and PRIMAL simplex for phase 2. Optimal solution with dual simplex at iteration 6 Final solution 0 at iteration 6. Excellent numeric accuracy ||*|| = 0 Memo: Largest [etaPFI v1.0] inv(B) had 0 NZ entries, 0.0x largest basis. In the total iteration count 6, 0 (0.0%) were minor/bound swaps. There were 0 refactorizations, 0 triggered by time and 0 by density. ... on average 6.0 major pivots per refactorization. Total solver time was 0.000 seconds. Created run 1 locally Starting task 1. After this it stops creating output in the terminal and no output files are produced.

1 0

Problems with worms??
by Jakub Zakrzewski 27 Oct '10

27 Oct '10

Hello, Sometimes QMC worm code (used on Bose-Hubbard) terminates with the following error: here come first earlier succesful simulations then ... Created run 85 remote on Host ID: 84 Created run 86 remote on Host ID: 85 Created run 87 remote on Host ID: 86 Created run 88 remote on Host ID: 87 All processes have been assigned Checking if Simulation 1 is finished: not yet, next check in 120 seconds ( 0% done). q = -0 state1 = 0 state2 = 0 bond_type = 0 zero matrix element in remove_jump application called MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD, -2) - process 67 Could somebody advice what I can do? Best regards Kuba

2 2

Problem in ALPS 2.0b4 which does not occur in ALPS 1.3.3
by Urs Gerber ITP 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

**I am using ALPS 2.0b4 by simulating bilayer spin-1/2 Heisenberg model in an uniform magnetic field on the square lattice using dirloop_sse. It is strange that some runs are killed automatically without producing any output file. For example, for lattice size L = 12, the run with \beta = 24 goes smoothly to the end, but the run using \beta = 48 is killed. This also happens for other lattice sizes when beta gets too large. I will be grateful if anyone can help me with this. U.G.

2 1

Example of how to run ALPS applications from Maple
by Andriy Zhugayevych 25 Oct '10

25 Oct '10

On my web-page http://zhugayevych.me/maple/index.htm you will find a Maple worksheet example of sparse diagonalization in ALPS 2.0 for Windows. The direct links are: http://zhugayevych.me/maple/ALPS_example.mw (Maple worksheet only) and http://zhugayevych.me/maple/ALPS.zip (whole working folder). If you will find an easier or more efficient way to run ALPS applications from Maple, please, let me know. Best regards, Andriy Zhugayevych

2 1

t-J model
by zhian asadzadeh 24 Oct '10

24 Oct '10

Hi every body, I have just started to study and recover some results in t-J model with DMRG application. I would like to do the DMRG with different doppings, could anyone help me how I could be able to do it? Thanks in advance, Mohammad.

2 1

ALPS 2 compilation on AIX
by jessica.alfonsi＠unipd.it 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

Dear Matthias, we've made again some progress with ALPS 2 b 3 compilation. Now it stops on test compilation with the following messages, it looks like a compiler bug similar to the previous one found for examples, so I'm going to turn off building tests, too. Is it OK ? Let me know please if you need the log files. Thank you again for your help Best Jessica These are the messages: [ 72%] Building CXX object test/alea/CMakeFiles/detailedbinning.dir/detailedbinning.C.o cd /gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/test/alea && /usr/bin/mpCC_r -+ -DBOOST_ALL_NO_LIB=1 -DBOOST_ALL_DYN_LINK=1 -qmaxmem=-1 -DBIND_FORTRAN_LOWERCASE -qsmp -O -DNDEBUG -I/cineca/prod/libraries/hdf5/1.8.4_ser/xl--10.1/include -I/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/src -I/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/src -I/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/boost -o CMakeFiles/detailedbinning.dir/detailedbinning.C.o -c /gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/test/alea/detailedbinning.C make[2]: Leaving directory `/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost' make[1]: Leaving directory `/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost' the reported error is: "/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/test/alea/detailedbinning.C", line 91.27: 1540-1228 (I) Argument number 2 is an lvalue of type "alps::RealObsevaluator". "/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/src/alps/alea/simpleobseval.h", line 724.43: 1540-1202 (I) No candidate is better than "alps::operator/ <double,alps::SimpleObservableEvaluator<double> >(const SimpleObservableEvaluator<double> &, SimpleObservableEvaluator<double>)". "/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/test/alea/detailedbinning.C", line 91.15: 1540-1231 (I) The conversion from argument number 1 to "const alps::SimpleObservableEvaluator<double> &" uses "the identity conversion". "/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/test/alea/detailedbinning.C", line 91.27: 1540-1231 (I) The conversion from argument number 2 to "alps::SimpleObservableEvaluator<double>" uses "an lvalue-to-rvalue transformation". "/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/src/alps/alea/simpleobseval.h", line 708.43: 1540-1202 (I) No candidate is better than "alps::operator/ <double,double>(SimpleObservableEvaluator<double>, const SimpleObservableEvaluator<double> &)". "/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/test/alea/detailedbinning.C", line 91.15: 1540-1231 (I) The conversion from argument number 1 to "alps::SimpleObservableEvaluator<double>" uses "an lvalue-to-rvalue transformation". "/gpfs/scratch/userinternal/cin8337a/build/alps-2.0.0b3-r4750-src-with-boost/alps/test/alea/detailedbinning.C", line 91.27: 1540-1231 (I) The conversion from argument number 2 to "const alps::SimpleObservableEvaluator<double> &" uses "the identity conversion". make[2]: *** [test/alea/CMakeFiles/detailedbinning.dir/detailedbinning.C.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [test/alea/CMakeFiles/detailedbinning.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 -bash-3.2$

2 1

successful ALPS 2 beta 3 on AIX
by jessica.alfonsi＠unipd.it 21 Oct '10

21 Oct '10

Dear Matthias, I'd like to inform you that we've just had a successful installation of ALPS 2 beta 3 on AIX after turning off examples. At the moment the build of applications is turned off, since I needed a very basic configuration for compiling my code. We're going to try soon with build applications on and I'll let you know if there are any issues again. Then we'll try more recent revisions of ALPS. Thank you very much again for your support. Best regards Jessica

1 0

Re: [ALPS-users] Lapack linking problem in ALPS 2 compilation on AIX (log files)
by Matthias Troyer 19 Oct '10

19 Oct '10

Dear Jessica, Once it works I would like to collect all the changes you needed to make to the sources, so that we can include them directly in the final ALPS 2.0 release Matthias On 14 Oct 2010, at 00:43, jessica.alfonsi(a)unipd.it wrote: > Thank you very much Prof. Troyer, you're simply the best !! > Jessica > On Gio, 14 Ottobre 2010 9:40 am, Matthias Troyer wrote: >> Hi Jessica, >> >> These are functions in the Fortran runtime libraries that need to be >> linked to Lapack. Please ask the people in your computer center to help >> you add the necessary libraries. >> >> Best regards >> >> Mathias Troyer >> >> On Oct 14, 2010, at 9:37 AM, jessica.alfonsi(a)unipd.it wrote: >> >>> Dear Prof. Troyer and Alet, >>> after trying your last suggestion the compilation still stops at the >>> same >>> point but with other messages related to xlf stuff. I've sent you in >>> attachment all log files and the latest CMakeCache.txt. I hope you can >>> give again us your precious help, I apologize for this non-stop e-mail >>> debugging ! >>> Thank you for your help, best >>> >>> Jessica<584558.err><584558.out><CMakeCache_14okt.txt> >> >> >> > > > -- > Dr.ssa Jessica Alfonsi > Dipartimento di Scienze Chimiche > Universit� di Padova > via Marzolo 1 35100 Padova (Italy) > +39 0498275726 > e-mail jessica.alfonsi(a)unipd.it >

2 2