Thermodynamics of O(3) Classical Heisenberg Model in Multipath MetropolisSimulation

Petar Malia,∗, Slobodan Radosevica, Predrag S. Rakicb, Lazar Stricevicb, Tara Petricb

aDepartment of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 4, 21000 Novi Sad, SerbiabFaculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia

Abstract

We study the thermodynamics of classical Heisenberg model using the multipath approach to Metropolis algorithmMonte Carlo simulation. This simulation approach produces uncorrelated results with known precision. Also, it canbe easily generalized to other classical models of magnetism. Comparing results obtained from multipath and fromsingle–path simulations we demonstrate that these approaches produce equivalent results.

Keywords: Multipath Metropolis simulation, Thermodynamics of O(3) classical Heisenberg model, Embarrassinglyparallel algorithm,2010 MSC: 82B20

1. Introduction

Classical lattice models attract attention nowadaysfor several reasons. Classical Heisenberg model is fre-quently used in Monte Carlo simulations of nonlinearsigma models [1], and also for modeling real com-pounds [2–4] and other systems [5, 6]. In the recent pa-per [7] multipath Metropolis simulation of O(3) classi-cal Heisenberg model is introduced. Since multipath ap-proach is embarrassingly parallelizable, it utilizes easilycomputing power of any number of computing elementsand provides normally distributed results with desiredprecision. One of the main advantages of the multipathMetropolis simulation is its applicability to many differ-ent classical lattice models, such as Ising [8–10], Potts[11, 12] etc. The multipath approach allows completecontrol over the simulation in a sense that it is possi-ble to conduct a ”short simulation”1 in order to makea reasonable estimate. Later, the simulation precisioncan be incrementally improved with additional, subse-quently computed results. This is of great practical im-portance as it turns out that the optimal simulation pa-rameters (number of lattice sweeps and the number of

∗Corresponding authorEmail addresses: petar.mali@df.uns.ac.rs (Petar Mali),

slobodan@df.uns.ac.rs (Slobodan Radosevic), pec@uns.ac.rs(Predrag S. Rakic), lucky@uns.ac.rs (Lazar Stricevic),tara.petric@gmail.com (Tara Petric)

1Simulation with just a few simulation paths that can be conductedin short period of time.

simulation paths), strongly depend on the temperatureand lattice size.

The simulation results presented in this paper werecomputed using free software C++ library called ”Hy-permo” [13] on computing services of the Supercom-puting Center of Galicia (CESGA) [14]. The figuresare created using ”Tulipko” [15] interactive visualiza-tion tool.

2. Model and simulation

The Hamiltonian of classical O(3) Heisenberg modelis

H = −J2

∑n,λ

Sn · Sn+λ, (1)

where the summation is taken over all lattice sites {n}with total N = L3 sites of simple cubic lattice, and λconnects a given site to its nearest neighbors. The con-vinient energy scale is set by J = kB = 1 and we use thestandard spherical parametrization for spin vectors

Sn = [sin θn cosϕn, sin θn sinϕn, cos θn]T. (2)

The quantities of interest are the total spin

M =1N

∑n

Sn, (3)

1

arX

iv:1

309.

6183

v2 [

cond

-mat

.sta

t-m

ech]

19

Feb

2014

of which the average value is magnetization 〈M〉 , theinternal energy of the system 〈H〉, magnetic susceptibil-ity

χ(T ) =L3

T

[〈|M|2〉 − 〈|M|〉2

], (4)

and capacity

CV (T ) =L3

T 2

[〈H2〉 − 〈H〉2

]. (5)

Because there can’t be no spontaneous symmetry break-ing in finite lattices magnetic susceptibility is definedwith

|M| =1N

∣∣∣∣∑n

Sn

∣∣∣∣. (6)

In multipath approach, each simulation consists of acertain number N of simulation paths (simulation path,SP). Each SP produces output. Outputs of all theN SPs,together, form a simulation output (SO). Monte Carloaverages are then computed as

〈A〉 =1N

N∑i=1

Ai (7)

and χ and CV are calculated from (4) and (5). It shouldbe noted that all thermodynamic quantities in the paperare calculated per lattice site.

Multipath Metropolis simulation can be easily visual-ized in the phase space of the lattice, which is the directproduct of the two-spheres S2 located at lattice sites2.Figure 1 illustrates multipath simulation in the lattice

Figure 1: (Color online) Illustration of the lattice phase space trajecto-ries in the multipath simulation at low temperature for random initialstate. Each line represents one path.

phase space (PS ) at low temperatures and random initialstate. Every curve represents a single–path through the

2The state of each site is determined by two angles ϕ ∈ [0, 2π] andθ ∈ [0, π] and thus the dimension of phase space is dim(PS ) = 2L3

.

lattice phase space. Each path starts from some randomstate of the lattice and it contributes with single result(the final state of that path) in (7). In contrast to single–path simulation, there is no correlation between the mul-tipath SP outputs. Thus, standard statistical analysis canbe applied on it (See [7] for detail discussion). Note thatexistence of two limit points in phase space is a conse-quence of finite lattice size [7, 16].

single-pathmultipath

Figure 2: (Color online) Magnetization as a function of temperaturefor L = 10 in the single–path and multipath approach.

3. Results and discussion

All simulations were conducted for linear size of thesystem L = 10 with periodic boundary condition, inboth single and multipath approach. In single–path ap-proach we used 2×106 lattice sweeps to achieve thermalequilibrium in whole temperature range, and afterwardsonly one out of every five lattice sweeps was used to cal-culate the averages of physical quantities [17]. At everytemperature 5 × 105 measurements were averaged.

To make sure that revailable results are generated bymultipath simulation, it is prepared in two different se-tups. In the first one, refered to as random initial statesimulation in the text, at every lattice site both angles θand ϕ are taken to be arbitrary. In the second one, de-noted as ordered initial state simulation spins are takento points along z-axis, with no restriction on secondspherical angle ϕ.

We have to bear in mind, however, that multipath sim-ulations naturally split into three temperature domainsin which different numbers of lattice sweeps/simulationpaths are needed. In low temperature region for sim-ulation convergence (See [7]) more lattice sweeps isneeded since all paths start from some random state ofthe lattice. (Simulation speed can be optimized if or-dered state is taken to be ”starting point” of all paths.)On the other hand, high temperature region requiresmore simulation paths. In the critical region we takesufficiently large number of lattice sweeps and results

2

due to overlaping of the two different output distribu-tions [16].

single-pathmultipath

Figure 3: (Color online) Energy as a function of temperature for L =

10 in the single–path and multipath approach.

multipathsingle-path

Figure 4: (Color online) Magnetic susceptibility as a function of tem-perature for L = 10 in the single–path and multipath approach.

single-pathmultipath

Figure 5: (Color online) Heat capacity as a function of temperaturefor L = 10 in the single–path and multipath approach.

From Figs. 2–5, we note that the differences in thethermodynamical characteristic obtained by single–pathand multipath approach are negligible.

disorderedordered

Figure 6: (Color online) Magnetization, calculated starting from bothordered and disordered states, as a function of number of latticesweeps for N = 104, at T = 1.

Figure 7: (Color online) Magnetization, calculated starting from or-dered state, as a function of number of lattice sweeps for differentnumber of simulation paths, at T = 1, for N = 10, 100, 1000 and10000.

The number of lattice sweeps needed for a latticeto reach it’s representative state (also called burn-in orwarm–up phase) is unknown. It depends on many pa-rameters and can vary substantially. Insufficient num-ber of lattice sweeps causes inaccurate simulation re-sults. To overcome this problem for each temperaturehalf of the simulation paths are computed from the ran-dom initial state where other half started from the or-dered state These two sets are averaged using (7) but re-sults from each half separately. When both halves pro-duce the same result (Figure 6) we can be reasonablycertain that it is an accurate value.

Total spin distribution at T = 1, with 5 × 103 latticesweeps and 10000 simulation paths is presented in Fig-ure 8. In Figure 8 every path starts from random latticeconfiguration. From all those measurments magnetiza-tion is obtained (see gray line at Figure 6).

However, contrary of that, total spin distributions in

3

Figs 9 and 10 are obtained from multipath simulationwhere every path started from ordered state. Both setsof measurments, one from Figure 9 and the other onefrom Figure 10, give the same value of magnetization(blue line in Figure 6).

Multipath approach of the O(3) classical Heisenbergmodel shows phase transition from the ordered ferro-magnetic phase to the paramagnetic phase at tempera-ture Tc = 1.442(20) (see [7]).

Figure 8: (Color online) Distribution of total spin at T = 1, for 5 ×103 lattice sweeps and 104 simulation paths. Every path started fromrandom spin configuration, where both angles θ and ϕ are taken to berandom.

Figure 9: (Color online) Distribution of total spin at T = 1, for 5 ×103 lattice sweeps and 104 simulation paths. Every path started fromordered configuration, with θ = 0 and ϕ arbitrary.

To demonstrate the applicability of multipath ap-proach we examined the thermodynamical properties of

Figure 10: (Color online) Distribution of total spin at T = 1, for 5×103

lattice sweeps and 10000 simulation paths. Every path started fromordered configuration, with θ = π and ϕ arbitrary.

classical Heisenberg model and compared it with the re-sults obtained from conventional single–path approach.As expected,the results are in good agreement. Themultipath approach produces statistically independentresults on which standard statistical methods can be ap-plied [7]. Therefore, it is possible to conduct a ”shortsimulation” for a quick qualitative analysis (Figure 7),which can be of great importance in research of newmodels.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Serbian Ministry ofEducation and Science under Contract No. OI-171009.The authors acknowledge the use of the Computer Clus-ter of the Galicia Supercomputing Centre (CESGA).

References

References

[1] J. Zinn-Justin, Phase transitions and renormalization group, Ox-ford University Press, 2007.

[2] A. P. Young, B. S. Shastry, Theory of the spin dynamics ofparamagnetic EuO and EuS, Journal of Physics C: Solid StatePhysics 15 (21) (1982) 4547.

[3] R. M. Nowotny, K. Binder, Classical Heisenberg antiferromag-nets with nearest and next-nearest neighbor interactions on theface-centered cubic lattice: a model for EuTe?, Zeitschrift furPhysik B Condensed Matter 77 (2) (1989) 287–301.

[4] H. E. Stanley, T. A. Kaplan, High - Temperature Expansions theClassical Heisenberg model, Physical Review Letters 16 (22)(1966) 981–983.

[5] W. Bialek, A. Cavagna, I. Giardina, T. Mora, E. Silvestri,M. Viale, A. M. Walczak, Statistical mechanics for naturalflocks of birds, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences 109 (13) (2012) 4786–4791.

4

[6] M. D. Leblanc, J. P. Whitehead, M. L. Plumer, Monte Carlosimulations of intragrain spin effects in a quasi-2D Heisenbergmodel with uniaxial anisotropy, Journal of Physics: CondensedMatter 25 (19) (2013) 196004.

[7] P. S. Rakic, S. M. Radosevic, P. M. Mali, L. M. Stricevic, Mul-tipath Metropolis Simulation of Classical Heisenberg Model,http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.6758 (2 2014).

[8] G. F. Newell, E. W. Montroll, On the Theory of the Ising Modelof Ferromagnetism, Rev. Mod. Phys. 25 (1953) 353–389.

[9] S. Jin, A. Sen, A. W. Sandvik, Ashkin-Teller criticality andpseudo-first-order behavior in a frustrated Ising model on thesquare lattice, Physical Review Letters 108 (4) (2012) 045702.

[10] W. Selke, L. Shchur, Critical cumulant in two-dimensionalanisotropic Ising models, Journal of Physics A: Mathematicaland General 38 (44) (2005) L739–L744.

[11] F. Y. Wu, The Potts model, Rev. Mod. Phys. 54 (1982) 235–268.[12] Z. Glumac, K. Uzelac, Yang-Lee zeros and the critical behav-

ior of the infinite-range two- and three-state Potts models, Phys.Rev. E 87 (2013) 022140.

[13] P. S. Rakic, The Hypermo library [online] (2013).URL http://bitbucket.org/predrag-rakic/hypermo/

[14] The Centre of Supercomputing of Galicia (CESGA) [online](2013).URL http://www.cesga.es

[15] T. Petric, The tulipko visualization tool [online] (2013).URL https://bitbucket.org/iTrustedYOu/tulipko

[16] K. Binder, Finite Size Scaling Analysis of Ising Model BlockDistribution Functions, Zeitschrift fur Physik B Condensed Mat-ter 43 (2) (1981) 119–140.

[17] C. Price, N. B. Perkins, Finite-temperature phase diagram ofthe classical Kitaev-Heisenberg model, Phys. Rev. B 88 (2013)024410.

5