Paper detail

Comparative Monte Carlo Efficiency by Monte Carlo Analysis

We propose a modified power method for computing the subdominant eigenvalue $λ_2$ of a matrix or continuous operator. Here we focus on defining simple Monte Carlo methods for its application. The methods presented use random walkers of mixed signs to represent the subdominant eigenfuction. Accordingly, the methods must cancel these signs properly in order to sample this eigenfunction faithfully. We present a simple procedure to solve this sign problem and then test our Monte Carlo methods by computing the $λ_2$ of various Markov chain transition matrices. We first computed ${λ_2}$ for several one and two dimensional Ising models, which have a discrete phase space, and compared the relative efficiencies of the Metropolis and heat-bath algorithms as a function of temperature and applied magnetic field. Next, we computed $λ_2$ for a model of an interacting gas trapped by a harmonic potential, which has a mutidimensional continuous phase space, and studied the efficiency of the Metropolis algorithm as a function of temperature and the maximum allowable step size $Δ$. Based on the $λ_2$ criterion, we found for the Ising models that small lattices appear to give an adequate picture of comparative efficiency and that the heat-bath algorithm is more efficient than the Metropolis algorithm only at low temperatures where both algorithms are inefficient. For the harmonic trap problem, we found that the traditional rule-of-thumb of adjusting $Δ$ so the Metropolis acceptance rate is around 50% range is often sub-optimal. In general, as a function of temperature or $Δ$, $λ_2$ for this model displayed trends defining optimal efficiency that the acceptance ratio does not. The cases studied also suggested that Monte Carlo simulations for a continuum model are likely more efficient than those for a discretized version of the model.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.