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:

  1. tebd will not be built (Cristian Degli Esposti Boschi)
  2. Re: tebd will not be built (Matthias Troyer)
  3.  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
?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.phys.ethz.ch/pipermail/comp-phys-alps-users/attachments/20110526/2ce359d8/attachment-0001.htm>

End of Comp-phys-alps-users Digest, Vol 62, Issue 13
****************************************************