He doesn't seem bothered. Not wet enough.
Send Comp-phys-alps-users mailing list submissions to
comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.phys.ethz.ch/listinfo/comp-phys-alps-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
comp-phys-alps-users-request@lists.phys.ethz.ch
You can reach the person managing the list at
comp-phys-alps-users-owner@lists.phys.ethz.ch
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Comp-phys-alps-users digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: SEED Parameter (Matthias Troyer)
2. Re: SEED Parameter (Marcelo Guimar?es)
3. Re: SEED Parameter (Evgeni Burovski)
4. Re: SEED Parameter (Marcelo Guimar?es)
5. Re: SEED Parameter (Matthias Troyer)
6. Re: Parsing Error - Cannot use Most ALPS Programs
(Matthias Troyer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:24:31 +0100
From: Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch>
To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] SEED Parameter
Message-ID: <D84D5AF0-0918-479A-BA5C-F5929190C858@phys.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Hi Marcello,
Indeed if the same SEED is used you get the same results if the same code is taken. However, dirloop_sse was completely rewritten between 1.3 and 2.0. It is a new code. Thus the results should now only agree within error bars.
Matthias
On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Marcelo Guimar?es wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I was wondering if using the same SEED parameter with the dirloop_sse application in different runs should produce exactly the same results.
>
> It is defined as " The random number seed used in the next run.". But I failed to produce the same results with alps 1.35 or with alps 2.02.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Marcelo Guimar?es
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 12:19:24 -0200
From: Marcelo Guimar?es <marcelosg@gmail.com>
To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] SEED Parameter
Message-ID:
<CA+RJ+21cenJ9GVuLXC9ger8RPE=Zwac55LbRdn8aP6otDs84mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Matthias,
Thank you for your answer. But I think I did not made myself clear.
I used the same input file , and ran it twice with alps 1.35 obtaining
different results in each run. Using the same input file and running twice
with alps 2.00.rc4 I got different results. All 4 results were different
from each other.
I could not obtain exactly the same results even using the same code and
the same SEED in either versions. Am I doing something wrong? Or the result
could never actually be the same?
In case it helps, this is the input file used in all runs:
FILE:parameter
LATTICE="simple cubic lattice"
MODEL = "spin"
ALGORITHM="sse"
MEASURE[Structure Factor]=false
MEASURE[Correlations]=false
MEASURE[Specific Heat]=true
MEASURE[Stiffness]=true
MEASURE[Magnetization]=true
WHICH_LOOP_TYPE="locopt"
EPSILON=0.5
local_S=1
J=-1
J0=-1
J1=-1
Jz=0
Jz'=0
{THERMALIZATION=10000;L=04;BETA=0.10;SWEEPS=1000;D=10.0;SEED=814}
I converted it with parameter2xml
Then I executed the dirloop_see v1.1 for alps 1.3.5:
dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
with the result:
...
<SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
<COUNT>8519</COUNT>
<MEAN method="simple">250.472</MEAN>
...
Then I repeated the command:
dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
and obtained the result:
...
<SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
<COUNT>3009</COUNT>
<MEAN method="simple">250.553</MEAN>
...
The same goes for the dirloop 4.1 based on alps 2.0.0rc4 code:
same parameters same SEED:
After extracting values with "convert2xml parameter.task1.out.run1" the
1st run produced:
<SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
<COUNT>1473</COUNT>
<MEAN method="simple">251.784</MEAN>
And in the 2nd run:
<SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
<COUNT>16076</COUNT>
<MEAN method="simple">250.616</MEAN>
Marcelo Guimar?es
2012/1/21 Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch>
> Hi Marcello,
>
> Indeed if the same SEED is used you get the same results if the same code
> is taken. However, dirloop_sse was completely rewritten between 1.3 and
> 2.0. It is a new code. Thus the results should now only agree within error
> bars.
>
> Matthias
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Marcelo Guimar?es wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I was wondering if using the same SEED parameter with the dirloop_sse
> application in different runs should produce exactly the same results.
> >
> > It is defined as " The random number seed used in the next run.". But I
> failed to produce the same results with alps 1.35 or with alps 2.02.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Marcelo Guimar?es
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.phys.ethz.ch/pipermail/comp-phys-alps-users/attachments/20120121/e66266d8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:33:23 +0000
From: Evgeni Burovski <evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com>
To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] SEED Parameter
Message-ID:
<CAMRo0iuVmcQ==1zqL+Q0xD6iCHBgQQfY0cfvJBJ8uXhGuF7K1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Dear Marcelo,
[while I'm not Matthias, I'd dare adding my 2pence nonetheless]
Look at the COUNT field of your output files. The number of measurements
taken is different in all your runs --- therefore the results are
different.
As far as I understand, the number of MC is not guaranteed in current
versions of ALPS applications. (Maybe someone more knowledgeable can
comment on this?)
Especially for short runs, the actual number of MC steps is almost always
larger than the number you request in the parameter files.
To make a meaningful comparison of equivalent runs you need to take
errorbars into account, just as Matthias said in his previous email.
Cheers,
Zhenya
2012/1/21 Marcelo Guimar?es <marcelosg@gmail.com>
> Dear Matthias,
>
> Thank you for your answer. But I think I did not made myself clear.
>
> I used the same input file , and ran it twice with alps 1.35 obtaining
> different results in each run. Using the same input file and running twice
> with alps 2.00.rc4 I got different results. All 4 results were different
> from each other.
>
> I could not obtain exactly the same results even using the same code and
> the same SEED in either versions. Am I doing something wrong? Or the result
> could never actually be the same?
>
> In case it helps, this is the input file used in all runs:
> FILE:parameter
>
> LATTICE="simple cubic lattice"
> MODEL = "spin"
> ALGORITHM="sse"
> MEASURE[Structure Factor]=false
> MEASURE[Correlations]=false
> MEASURE[Specific Heat]=true
> MEASURE[Stiffness]=true
> MEASURE[Magnetization]=true
> WHICH_LOOP_TYPE="locopt"
> EPSILON=0.5
> local_S=1
> J=-1
> J0=-1
> J1=-1
> Jz=0
> Jz'=0
> {THERMALIZATION=10000;L=04;BETA=0.10;SWEEPS=1000;D=10.0;SEED=814}
>
> I converted it with parameter2xml
>
> Then I executed the dirloop_see v1.1 for alps 1.3.5:
> dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
>
> with the result:
> ...
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>8519</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">250.472</MEAN>
> ...
> Then I repeated the command:
> dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
>
> and obtained the result:
> ...
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>3009</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">250.553</MEAN>
> ...
>
> The same goes for the dirloop 4.1 based on alps 2.0.0rc4 code:
> same parameters same SEED:
>
> After extracting values with "convert2xml parameter.task1.out.run1" the
> 1st run produced:
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>1473</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">251.784</MEAN>
>
> And in the 2nd run:
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>16076</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">250.616</MEAN>
>
>
> Marcelo Guimar?es
>
>
>
> 2012/1/21 Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch>
>
>> Hi Marcello,
>>
>> Indeed if the same SEED is used you get the same results if the same code
>> is taken. However, dirloop_sse was completely rewritten between 1.3 and
>> 2.0. It is a new code. Thus the results should now only agree within error
>> bars.
>>
>> Matthias
>>
>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Marcelo Guimar?es wrote:
>>
>> > Dear All,
>> >
>> > I was wondering if using the same SEED parameter with the dirloop_sse
>> application in different runs should produce exactly the same results.
>> >
>> > It is defined as " The random number seed used in the next run.". But I
>> failed to produce the same results with alps 1.35 or with alps 2.02.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Marcelo Guimar?es
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.phys.ethz.ch/pipermail/comp-phys-alps-users/attachments/20120121/bb81e70e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 13:39:23 -0200
From: Marcelo Guimar?es <marcelosg@gmail.com>
To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] SEED Parameter
Message-ID:
<CA+RJ+23QLiP53UQ6WbeK10Wc3_F2nYDwA8795DTjOscVsTMe0g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Evgeni,
Thank you for your answer. Now I think I undestand, even though the
sequence generated is the same with the same seed, the program keeps
running additional measurements until checked by the scheduler.
Thanks,
Marcelo Guimaraes
2012/1/21 Evgeni Burovski <evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com>
> Dear Marcelo,
>
> [while I'm not Matthias, I'd dare adding my 2pence nonetheless]
>
> Look at the COUNT field of your output files. The number of measurements
> taken is different in all your runs --- therefore the results are
> different.
>
> As far as I understand, the number of MC is not guaranteed in current
> versions of ALPS applications. (Maybe someone more knowledgeable can
> comment on this?)
> Especially for short runs, the actual number of MC steps is almost always
> larger than the number you request in the parameter files.
>
> To make a meaningful comparison of equivalent runs you need to take
> errorbars into account, just as Matthias said in his previous email.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zhenya
>
>
>
> 2012/1/21 Marcelo Guimar?es <marcelosg@gmail.com>
>
>> Dear Matthias,
>>
>> Thank you for your answer. But I think I did not made myself clear.
>>
>> I used the same input file , and ran it twice with alps 1.35 obtaining
>> different results in each run. Using the same input file and running twice
>> with alps 2.00.rc4 I got different results. All 4 results were different
>> from each other.
>>
>> I could not obtain exactly the same results even using the same code and
>> the same SEED in either versions. Am I doing something wrong? Or the result
>> could never actually be the same?
>>
>> In case it helps, this is the input file used in all runs:
>> FILE:parameter
>>
>> LATTICE="simple cubic lattice"
>> MODEL = "spin"
>> ALGORITHM="sse"
>> MEASURE[Structure Factor]=false
>> MEASURE[Correlations]=false
>> MEASURE[Specific Heat]=true
>> MEASURE[Stiffness]=true
>> MEASURE[Magnetization]=true
>> WHICH_LOOP_TYPE="locopt"
>> EPSILON=0.5
>> local_S=1
>> J=-1
>> J0=-1
>> J1=-1
>> Jz=0
>> Jz'=0
>> {THERMALIZATION=10000;L=04;BETA=0.10;SWEEPS=1000;D=10.0;SEED=814}
>>
>> I converted it with parameter2xml
>>
>> Then I executed the dirloop_see v1.1 for alps 1.3.5:
>> dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
>>
>> with the result:
>> ...
>> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
>> <COUNT>8519</COUNT>
>> <MEAN method="simple">250.472</MEAN>
>> ...
>> Then I repeated the command:
>> dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
>>
>> and obtained the result:
>> ...
>> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
>> <COUNT>3009</COUNT>
>> <MEAN method="simple">250.553</MEAN>
>> ...
>>
>> The same goes for the dirloop 4.1 based on alps 2.0.0rc4 code:
>> same parameters same SEED:
>>
>> After extracting values with "convert2xml parameter.task1.out.run1" the
>> 1st run produced:
>> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
>> <COUNT>1473</COUNT>
>> <MEAN method="simple">251.784</MEAN>
>>
>> And in the 2nd run:
>> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
>> <COUNT>16076</COUNT>
>> <MEAN method="simple">250.616</MEAN>
>>
>>
>> Marcelo Guimar?es
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/1/21 Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch>
>>
>>> Hi Marcello,
>>>
>>> Indeed if the same SEED is used you get the same results if the same
>>> code is taken. However, dirloop_sse was completely rewritten between 1.3
>>> and 2.0. It is a new code. Thus the results should now only agree within
>>> error bars.
>>>
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>> On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Marcelo Guimar?es wrote:
>>>
>>> > Dear All,
>>> >
>>> > I was wondering if using the same SEED parameter with the dirloop_sse
>>> application in different runs should produce exactly the same results.
>>> >
>>> > It is defined as " The random number seed used in the next run.". But
>>> I failed to produce the same results with alps 1.35 or with alps 2.02.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Regards,
>>> >
>>> > Marcelo Guimar?es
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.phys.ethz.ch/pipermail/comp-phys-alps-users/attachments/20120121/d2f58407/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:57:23 +0100
From: Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch>
To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] SEED Parameter
Message-ID: <9606020E-BD1A-4E15-9FF1-FC31F74135D3@phys.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Indeed that is the case. If it is important for you we can add an easy check that stops after exactly the given number of sweeps as long as the code is not run in parallel.
Matthias
On Jan 21, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Marcelo Guimar?es wrote:
> Dear Evgeni,
>
> Thank you for your answer. Now I think I undestand, even though the sequence generated is the same with the same seed, the program keeps running additional measurements until checked by the scheduler.
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marcelo Guimaraes
>
> 2012/1/21 Evgeni Burovski <evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com>
> Dear Marcelo,
>
> [while I'm not Matthias, I'd dare adding my 2pence nonetheless]
>
> Look at the COUNT field of your output files. The number of measurements taken is different in all your runs --- therefore the results are different.
>
> As far as I understand, the number of MC is not guaranteed in current versions of ALPS applications. (Maybe someone more knowledgeable can comment on this?)
> Especially for short runs, the actual number of MC steps is almost always larger than the number you request in the parameter files.
>
> To make a meaningful comparison of equivalent runs you need to take errorbars into account, just as Matthias said in his previous email.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zhenya
>
>
>
> 2012/1/21 Marcelo Guimar?es <marcelosg@gmail.com>
> Dear Matthias,
>
> Thank you for your answer. But I think I did not made myself clear.
>
> I used the same input file , and ran it twice with alps 1.35 obtaining different results in each run. Using the same input file and running twice with alps 2.00.rc4 I got different results. All 4 results were different from each other.
>
> I could not obtain exactly the same results even using the same code and the same SEED in either versions. Am I doing something wrong? Or the result could never actually be the same?
>
> In case it helps, this is the input file used in all runs:
> FILE:parameter
>
> LATTICE="simple cubic lattice"
> MODEL = "spin"
> ALGORITHM="sse"
> MEASURE[Structure Factor]=false
> MEASURE[Correlations]=false
> MEASURE[Specific Heat]=true
> MEASURE[Stiffness]=true
> MEASURE[Magnetization]=true
> WHICH_LOOP_TYPE="locopt"
> EPSILON=0.5
> local_S=1
> J=-1
> J0=-1
> J1=-1
> Jz=0
> Jz'=0
> {THERMALIZATION=10000;L=04;BETA=0.10;SWEEPS=1000;D=10.0;SEED=814}
>
> I converted it with parameter2xml
>
> Then I executed the dirloop_see v1.1 for alps 1.3.5:
> dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
>
> with the result:
> ...
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>8519</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">250.472</MEAN>
> ...
> Then I repeated the command:
> dirloop_sse --Tmin=10 parameter.in.xml
>
> and obtained the result:
> ...
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>3009</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">250.553</MEAN>
> ...
>
> The same goes for the dirloop 4.1 based on alps 2.0.0rc4 code:
> same parameters same SEED:
>
> After extracting values with "convert2xml parameter.task1.out.run1" the 1st run produced:
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>1473</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">251.784</MEAN>
>
> And in the 2nd run:
> <SCALAR_AVERAGE name="Energy">
> <COUNT>16076</COUNT>
> <MEAN method="simple">250.616</MEAN>
>
>
> Marcelo Guimar?es
>
>
>
> 2012/1/21 Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch>
> Hi Marcello,
>
> Indeed if the same SEED is used you get the same results if the same code is taken. However, dirloop_sse was completely rewritten between 1.3 and 2.0. It is a new code. Thus the results should now only agree within error bars.
>
> Matthias
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Marcelo Guimar?es wrote:
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> > I was wondering if using the same SEED parameter with the dirloop_sse application in different runs should produce exactly the same results.
> >
> > It is defined as " The random number seed used in the next run.". But I failed to produce the same results with alps 1.35 or with alps 2.02.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Marcelo Guimar?es
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.phys.ethz.ch/pipermail/comp-phys-alps-users/attachments/20120121/d78b742d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:45:51 +0100
From: Matthias Troyer <troyer@phys.ethz.ch>
To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch
Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] Parsing Error - Cannot use Most ALPS
Programs
Message-ID: <A4EEF249-CBE6-41F9-BA13-3ECF3124DCEB@phys.ethz.ch>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Since this is a common problem I made a quick 2.0.3 release containing this patch. The precompiled versions remain at 2.0.2 since they are not affected by this Linux issue.
Matthias
On Jan 20, 2012, at 7:36 AM, Mateusz ??cki wrote:
> Dear Dan
> Yes is was discussed here a few weeks ago. Even the path was supplied. Look for exchange of emails between Matthias Troyer and myself.
>
> Regards,
> Mateusz ??cki
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Dan Thompson wrote:
>
>> The following error is returned when I use ALPS 2.0.1 on my linux cluster and I am concerned I might have an installation error:
>>
>> Did not parse to end of string 'DEPLETION'
>>
>> It first appeared when I was using the loop qmc program. The program would exit prematurely right after it began parsing task files.
>>
>> I tried running the loop tutorials to make sure there wasn't something wrong with my parameter files. The same error appears right after "parsing task files ..." is outputted.
>>
>> I have tested some of the other ALPS programs (dirloop_sse, dmrg, sparsediag, and worm) according to the tutorials and I am receiving the same error.
>>
>> There is an older installation of ALPS on the same cluster that was installed last summer and if I try running loop or some other other programs by changing my path variable, everything works fine.
>>
>> Has anyone seen this error before?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -Dan
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.phys.ethz.ch/pipermail/comp-phys-alps-users/attachments/20120121/1a6a12ad/attachment-0001.html>
End of Comp-phys-alps-users Digest, Vol 70, Issue 12
****************************************************