Comp-phys-alps-users

comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch

1244 discussions

ALPS Bug?
by Emanuele Dalla Torre 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

Dear ALPS, thank you for existing! I found something that looks like a bug. I use the worm algorithm (Windows XP) with the following parameter file. When I run the code, it exits without giving any detail. If I change the letter W with any other letter it works. LATTICE="square lattice"; L=4; MODEL_LIBRARY="pairedBEC.model.xml" MODEL="boson Hubbard"; NONLOCAL=0; V = 1.0; W = 0.1; mu = 0.5; Nmax = 2; T = 0.1; SWEEPS=500000; THERMALIZATION=10000; { t=0.01; }

3 2

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

ALPS binary packages for Debian (amd64)
by Ryo IGARASHI 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

Hi, I have created binary packages of ALPS 2.0.0b4 for Debian GNU/Linux (primary for sid(unstable), but should work also on squeeze(testing)). The apt line is as follows (I also updated ALPS wiki): deb http://alps.comp-phys.org/static/software/debian/sid ./ deb-src http://alps.comp-phys.org/static/software/debian/sid ./ Currently, I have only compiled amd64 packages. I can run python-based tutorials with these binary packages[1], but if you find any bugs related to debian packaging, please open the trac ticket and assign to me(rigarash) or just report to the ML. This packaging scheme can be applied of course to the Ubuntu system, I will try to build Ubuntu package (10.10) soon. [1] Since all binaries/scripts are installed system-wide, use 'python' instead of 'alpspython'. -- Ryo IGARASHI, Ph.D. rigarash(a)hosi.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp OpenPGP fingerprint: BAD9 71E3 28F3 8952 5640 6A53 EC79 A280 6A19 2319

2 2

ALPS 2 compilation on AIX
by jessica.alfonsi＠unipd.it 02 Nov '10

02 Nov '10

Hello Matthias, your workaround for simpleobseval.h worked fine and compilation of examples/tests/applications has made further progress. Now I've found the following error message: "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b3_20101021/alps/src/alps/model/operatordescriptor.h", line 99.40: 1540-0215 (S) The wrong number of arguments have been specified for "alps::SiteBasisDescriptor<short>::get_parameters(bool) const". "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b3_20101021/alps/src/alps/model/operatordescriptor.h", line 95.1: 1540-0700 This occurs both in examples (printnumeric) and in applications (qmc), as reported below: (I) The previous message was produced while processing "alps::OperatorDescriptor<short>::apply<alps::site_state<short>,std::complex<double> >(site_state<short>, const SiteBasisDescriptor<short> &, const ParameterEvaluator<std::complex<double> > &, bool) const". "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b3_20101021/alps/src/alps/model/sitebasisdescriptor.h", line 114.20: 1540-0700 (I) The previous message was produced while processing "alps::SiteBasisDescriptor<short>::apply<alps::site_state<short>,std::complex<double> >(const string &, site_state<short>, const ParameterEvaluator<std::complex<double> > &, bool) const". "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b3_20101021/alps/src/alps/model/siteterm.h", line 142.44: 1540-0700 (I) The previous message was produced while processing "alps::SiteOperatorEvaluator<short,std::complex<double>,alps::site_state<short> >::partial_evaluate_function(const string &, const Expression<std::complex<double> > &, bool) const". "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b3_20101021/alps/src/alps/model/siteterm.h", line 62.7: 1540-0700 (I) The previous message was produced while processing "class alps::SiteOperatorEvaluator<short,std::complex<double>,alps::site_state<short> >". make[2]: *** [example/model/CMakeFiles/print_numeric.dir/print_numeric.cpp.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [example/model/CMakeFiles/print_numeric.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 The previous message was produced while processing "alps::OperatorDescriptor<short>::apply<alps::site_state<short>,std::complex<double> >(site_state<short>, const SiteBasisDescriptor<short> &, const ParameterEvaluator<std::complex<double> > &, bool) const". "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b4-r4959-src-with-boost/alps/src/alps/model/sitebasisdescriptor.h", line 114.20: 1540-0700 (I) The previous message was produced while processing "alps::SiteBasisDescriptor<short>::apply<alps::site_state<short>,std::complex<double> >(const string &, site_state<short>, const ParameterEvaluator<std::complex<double> > &, bool) const". "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b4-r4959-src-with-boost/alps/src/alps/model/siteterm.h", line 142.44: 1540-0700 (I) The previous message was produced while processing "alps::SiteOperatorEvaluator<short,std::complex<double>,alps::site_state<short> >::partial_evaluate_function(const string &, const Expression<std::complex<double> > &, bool) const". "/gpfs/scratch/userexternal/jalfonsi/alps-2.0.0b4-r4959-src-with-boost/alps/src/alps/model/siteterm.h", line 62.7: 1540-0700 (I) The previous message was produced while processing "class alps::SiteOperatorEvaluator<short,std::complex<double>,alps::site_state<short> >". make[2]: *** [applications/qmc/checksign/CMakeFiles/checksign.dir/checksign.C.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [applications/qmc/checksign/CMakeFiles/checksign.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 It also occurs in my code, so I hope you can find a fix also for this, please. Thank you in advance for your help. Best Jessica

2 1

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

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Comp-phys-alps-users