Paper detail

Does the complex Langevin method give unbiased results?

We investigate whether the stationary solution of the Fokker-Planck equation of the complex Langevin algorithm reproduces the correct expectation values. When the complex Langevin algorithm for an action $S(x)$ is convergent, it produces an equivalent complex probability distribution $P(x)$ which ideally would coincide with $e^{-S(x)}$. We show that the projected Fokker-Planck equation fulfilled by $P(x)$ may contain an anomalous term whose form is made explicit. Such term spoils the relation $P(x)=e^{-S(x)}$, introducing a bias in the expectation values. Through the analysis of several periodic and non-periodic one-dimensional problems, using either exact or numerical solutions of the Fokker-Planck equation on the complex plane, it is shown that the anomaly is present quite generally. In fact, an anomaly is expected whenever the Langevin walker needs only a finite time to go to infinity and come back, and this is the case for typical actions. We conjecture that the anomaly is the rule rather than the exception in the one-dimensional case, however, this could change as the number of variables involved increases.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

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 map preview

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.