FYS3150/Project-4
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Updated method section.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Janita Willumsen
2023-12-01 13:54:59 +01:00
parent 33298b4f8f
commit 064bf61ffb
2 changed files with 51 additions and 6 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

41
latex/sections/results.tex
View File

@@ -2,6 +2,47 @@
\begin{document}
\section{Results}\label{sec:results}
% 2.1-2-4 divided into 40 steps, which gives us a step size of 0.0075.
% 10 MPI processes
% - 10 threads per process
% = 100 threads total
% Not a lot of downtime for the threads
However, when the temperature is close to the critical point, we observe an increase
in expected energy and a decrease in magnetization. Suggesting a higher energy and
a loss of magnetization close to the critical temperature.
% We did not set the seed for the random number generator, which resulted in
% different numerical estimates each time we ran the model. However, all expectation
% values are calculated using the same data. The burn-in time varied each time.
% We see a burn-in time t = 5000-10000 MC cycles. However, this changed between runs.
We decided with a burn-in time parallelization trade-off. That is, we set the
burn-in time lower in favor of sampling. To take advantage of the parallelization
and not to waste computational resources. The argument to discard samples generated
during the burn-in time is ... Increasing number of samples outweigh the ...
parallelize using MPI. We generated
samples for the temperature range $T \in [2.1, 2.4]$. Using Fox we generated both
1 million samples and 10 million samples.
It is worth mentioning that the time (number of MC cycles) necessary to get a
good numerical estimate, compared to the analytical result, foreshadowing the
burn-in time.
Markov chain starting point can differ, resulting in different simulation. By
discarding the first samples, the ones generated before system equilibrium we can
get an estimate closer to the real solution. Since we want to estimate expectation
values at a given temperature, the samples should represent the system at that
temperature.
Depending on number of samples used in numerical estimates, using the samples
generated during burn-in can in high bias and high variance if the ratio is skewed.
However, if most samples are generated after burn-in the effect is not as visible.
Can't remove randomness by starting around equilibrium, since samples are generated
using several ising models we need to sample using the same conditions that is
system state equilibrium.
\subsection{Burn-in time}\label{subsec:burnin_time}
$\boldsymbol{Draft}$
We start with a lattice where $L = 20$, to study the burn-in time, that is the