Hi shuai cui,
your model is correct, and the result for the second run is fair but not so near to exact result, I suggest you increase the number of *maxstates (=300) *, and also your *lattice size*, you will get a better result, just for check point I give you the exact energy (per site) at h=1 (which is critical h in this model) J=-1, h=1 L=100, *E0=-1.2732919* ( This is exact energy not DMRG result)
Zhian.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:00 PM, < comp-phys-alps-users-request@lists.phys.ethz.ch> wrote:
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:
- tebd will not be built (Cristian Degli Esposti Boschi)
- Re: tebd will not be built (Matthias Troyer)
- transverse Ising model with DMRG (shuai cui)
Message: 1 Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 13:16:52 +0200 From: Cristian Degli Esposti Boschi degliesposti@bo.imm.cnr.it Subject: [ALPS-users] tebd will not be built To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch Message-ID: 4DDCE524.6070605@bo.imm.cnr.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Dear users,
I'm installing ALPS 2 on a Debian 6 (squeeze) machine. After issuing cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX... I get the following (I extracted the last relevant part):
... Falling back to CMake provied LAPACK/BLAS detection. -- A library with BLAS API found. -- A library with BLAS API found. -- A library with LAPACK API found. -- SQLite Library: not found -- LPSolve Library: not found -- Could NOT find SZIP (missing: SZIP_LIBRARIES SZIP_INCLUDE_DIRS) -- HDF5 version found is 1.8.4-patch1 in /usr/include -- Python interpreter /usr/bin/python -- Python interpreter ok : version 2.6.6 -- PYTHON_INCLUDE_DIRS = /usr/include/python2.6 -- PYTHON_NUMPY_INCLUDE_DIR = /usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/numpy/core/include -- PYTHON_SITE_PKG = /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages -- PYTHON_LIBRARY = /usr/lib/python2.6/config/libpython2.6.so -- PYTHON_EXTRA_LIBS =-lssl -lcrypto -lssl -lcrypto -L/usr/lib -lz -lpthread -ldl -lutil -- PYTHON_LINK_FOR_SHARED = -Xlinker -export-dynamic -Wl,-O1 -Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions -- Numpy include in /usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/numpy/core/include -- ALPS XML dir is /usr/local/ALPS/alps-2.0.1-r5565-src-with-boost/alps/lib/xml -- Adding Boost dir: /usr/local/ALPS/alps-2.0.1-r5565-src-with-boost/boost -- HDF5 version found is 1.8.4-patch1 in /usr/include -- HDF5 version found is 1.8.4-patch1 in /usr/include -- tebd will not be built -- Configuring done -- Generating done -- Build files have been written to: /usr/local/ALPS/alps-2.0.1-r5565-src-with-boost
Now, my problem is that "tebd will not be built" and I wonder why. Is it related to the problem of "Falling back to CMake provied LAPACK/BLAS detection" or maybe to what reported in the installation guidelines that "The tebd code requires a fortran compiler and that HDF5 be built with the --enable-fortran configure option." In the latter case how can I fix the things in Debian-provided HDF5?
Thanks for your time,
Cristian Degli Esposti Boschi CNR-IMM, Sezione di Bologna, via Gobetti, 101, 40129, Bologna, Italia tel. ++39 051 6399152, fax ++39 051 6399216 degliesposti -AT- bo.imm.cnr.it
Message: 2 Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 06:51:39 -1000 From: Matthias Troyer troyer@phys.ethz.ch Subject: Re: [ALPS-users] tebd will not be built To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch Message-ID: 291CA21C-BF47-48EC-881E-27DD21C9F49D@phys.ethz.ch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Did you specify a Fortran-90 compiler?
On May 25, 2011, at 1:16 AM, Cristian Degli Esposti Boschi wrote:
Dear users,
I'm installing ALPS 2 on a Debian 6 (squeeze) machine. After issuing cmake -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX... I get the following (I extracted the last
relevant part):
... Falling back to CMake provied LAPACK/BLAS detection. -- A library with BLAS API found. -- A library with BLAS API found. -- A library with LAPACK API found. -- SQLite Library: not found -- LPSolve Library: not found -- Could NOT find SZIP (missing: SZIP_LIBRARIES SZIP_INCLUDE_DIRS) -- HDF5 version found is 1.8.4-patch1 in /usr/include -- Python interpreter /usr/bin/python -- Python interpreter ok : version 2.6.6 -- PYTHON_INCLUDE_DIRS = /usr/include/python2.6 -- PYTHON_NUMPY_INCLUDE_DIR =
/usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/numpy/core/include
-- PYTHON_SITE_PKG = /usr/lib/python2.6/dist-packages -- PYTHON_LIBRARY = /usr/lib/python2.6/config/libpython2.6.so -- PYTHON_EXTRA_LIBS =-lssl -lcrypto -lssl -lcrypto -L/usr/lib -lz
-lpthread -ldl -lutil
-- PYTHON_LINK_FOR_SHARED = -Xlinker -export-dynamic -Wl,-O1
-Wl,-Bsymbolic-functions
-- Numpy include in /usr/lib/pymodules/python2.6/numpy/core/include -- ALPS XML dir is
/usr/local/ALPS/alps-2.0.1-r5565-src-with-boost/alps/lib/xml
-- Adding Boost dir:
/usr/local/ALPS/alps-2.0.1-r5565-src-with-boost/boost
-- HDF5 version found is 1.8.4-patch1 in /usr/include -- HDF5 version found is 1.8.4-patch1 in /usr/include -- tebd will not be built -- Configuring done -- Generating done -- Build files have been written to:
/usr/local/ALPS/alps-2.0.1-r5565-src-with-boost
Now, my problem is that "tebd will not be built" and I wonder why. Is it related to the problem of "Falling back to CMake provied
LAPACK/BLAS detection" or maybe to what reported in the installation
guidelines that "The tebd code requires a fortran compiler and that HDF5
be built with the --enable-fortran configure option."
In the latter case how can I fix the things in Debian-provided HDF5?
Thanks for your time,
Cristian Degli Esposti Boschi CNR-IMM, Sezione di Bologna, via Gobetti, 101, 40129, Bologna, Italia tel. ++39 051 6399152, fax ++39 051 6399216 degliesposti -AT- bo.imm.cnr.it
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 11:28:42 +0800 (CST) From: shuai cui cuishuai_757@yahoo.com.cn Subject: [ALPS-users] transverse Ising model with DMRG To: comp-phys-alps-users@lists.phys.ethz.ch Message-ID: 606168.86645.qm@web15904.mail.cnb.yahoo.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear Prof. Troyer ? I am trying to calculate the ground state energy of the transverse Ising-Model ( -J*4*Sx(i)*Sx(j)-h*2*Sz(i) ) on a period 1d-chain-lattice with the DMRG. Though I had use both the default model and a modified model, the results are not satisfactory. So I ask for why the DMRG doesn't give a good result in transverse field Ising model as in other 1D model. the modified model is:
<MODELS> <SITEBASIS name="spin"> ? <PARAMETER name="local_spin" default="local_S"/> ? <PARAMETER name="local_S" default="1/2"/> ? <QUANTUMNUMBER name="S" min="local_spin" max="local_spin"/> ? <QUANTUMNUMBER name="Sz" min="-S" max="S"/> ? <OPERATOR name="Splus" matrixelement="sqrt(S*(S+1)-Sz*(Sz+1))"> ??? <CHANGE quantumnumber="Sz" change="1"/> ? </OPERATOR> ? <OPERATOR name="Sminus" matrixelement="sqrt(S*(S+1)-Sz*(Sz-1))"> ??? <CHANGE quantumnumber="Sz" change="-1"/> ? </OPERATOR> ? <OPERATOR name="Sz" matrixelement="Sz"/> </SITEBASIS> <BASIS name="spin"> ? <SITEBASIS ref="spin"> ??? <PARAMETER name="local_spin" value="local_S#"/> ??? <PARAMETER name="local_S#" value="local_S"/> ??? <PARAMETER name="local_S" value="1/2"/> ? </SITEBASIS> ? <CONSTRAINT quantumnumber="Sz" value="Sz_total"/> </BASIS> <SITEOPERATOR name="Sx" site="x"> ? 1/2*(Splus(x)+Sminus(x)) </SITEOPERATOR> <HAMILTONIAN name="trans_Ising"> ?? <PARAMETER name="J" default="0"/> ?? <PARAMETER name="h" default="0"/> ?? <BASIS ref="spin"/> ?? <SITETERM site="i"> ???? h*2*Sz(i) ?? </SITETERM> ?? <BONDTERM source="i" target="j"> ???? J*4*Sx(i)*Sx(j) ?? </BONDTERM> </HAMILTONIAN> </MODELS> ? Separately, the parameter files are: LATTICE="chain lattice" MODEL= "spin" Jz=-4 Gamma=2 local_S=1/2 SWEEPS=4 NUMBER_EIGENVALUES=1 L=8 {MAXSTATES=20}? ? LATTICE="chain lattice" MODEL= "trans_Ising" J=-1 h=-1 local_S=1/2 SWEEPS=4 NUMBER_EIGENVALUES=1 L=8 {MAXSTATES=20}?
Correspondingly, the results are: FINAL SWEEP - LAST ITERATION NUMBER OF STATES: 8 2 2 8 256 E0 = -282.636028178 ITER = 3 ENTROPY = 1.78546641552
Truncation error = -4.98732999343e-17
Checking if it is finished: not yet, next check in 60 seconds ( 0% done). Halted Simulation 1 This task took 46 seconds. Checkpointing Simulation 1 Finished with everything. FINAL SWEEP - LAST ITERATION NUMBER OF STATES: 8 2 2 8 256 E0 = -9.11126807853 ITER = 3 ENTROPY = 0.931162271124
Truncation error = 2.22044604925e-16
Checking if it is finished: not yet, next check in 60 seconds ( 0% done). Halted Simulation 1 This task took 13 seconds. Checkpointing Simulation 1 Finished with everything. ? but the correct data should be? -10.251661790966022 which calculated by sparsediag. ? I don't understand why DMRG give a low precision result, even I had set h=0. Remarkably, the default model gives a wrong data, which far away from the correct one. I had exercise the XX model, which gives a very well data. I wonder if the transverse field Ising model has some special feature, or the DMRG parameter I used is not right? ? best regards, Shuai Cui ?