Density of states approach for field theories with a ... ·...
Transcript of Density of states approach for field theories with a ... ·...
Density of states approach for field theories witha complex action problem
Mario GiulianiChristof Gattringer
Karl Franzens Universität Graz
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 1 / 21
Table of contents
1 Density of States: general introduction
2 Example system: SU(3) gauge theory with static color sources
3 Two strategies to compute the density: LLR and FFA
4 Results and conclusions
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 2 / 21
Some recent DoS papers
Examples of systems treated with modern DoS methods:
LLR method:
U(1) LGT
SU(2) with heavy quarks at finite densities
Relativistic Bose Gas
Heavy Dense QCD
Phys.Rev.Lett. 109 (2012)
Phys.Rev. D88 (2013)
PoS LATTICE2015 (2016)
Eur.Phys.J. C76 (2016)
FFA method:
Z3 spin system at finite µ
SU(3) spin system at finite µ
2D U(1) LGT with θ term
SU(3) LGT with color sources
Phys.Lett. B747 (2015)
Nucl.Phys. B913 (2016)
POS LATTICE2015 (2016)
arXiv:1703.03614
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 3 / 21
Density of States Method
Density of states
Z =
∫D[ψ]e−S[ψ] 〈O〉 =
1Z
∫D[ψ]O[ψ]e−S[ψ]
In the density of states approach we divide the action into real and imaginaryparts:
S [ψ] = Sρ[ψ]− iξX[ψ]
* Sρ[ψ] and X[ψ] are real functionals of the fields ψ
* Sρ[ψ] is the real part of the action that we include in the weighted density ρ
* ξ is a real valued control parameter, e.g., ξ ∝ sinh(µNT )
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 4 / 21
Density of States Method
The weighted density is defined as:
ρ(x) =
∫D[ψ]e−Sρ[ψ]δ(X[ψ]− x)
Z =
∫ xmax
xmin
dx ρ(x) e iξx 〈O〉 =1Z
∫ xmax
xmin
dx ρ(x) e iξxO[x ]
Usually there is a symmetry ψ −→ ψ′ such that:
Sρ[ψ′] = Sρ[ψ], X[ψ′] = −X[ψ],
∫D[ψ′] =
∫D[ψ]
Z is real and ρ(x) is an even function
Key challenge: high precision for ρ(x)
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 5 / 21
SU(3) LGT with static color sources
SU(3) spin model is a 4D effective theory for heavy dense QCD
The static color sources are represented by Polyakov loops
We have the following action:
S [U] = −SWilson[U]− η[eµNT
∑~n
P(~n) + e−µNT
∑~n
P(~n)∗]
Where the Polyakov loops are:
P(~n) =13Tr
NT−1∏n4=0
U4(~n, n4)
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 6 / 21
SU(3) static color sources
Decompose the action in real and imaginary parts:
S [U] = Sρ[U]− i2η sinh(µNT )X[U] = Sρ − iξX
where:
Sρ[U] = SWilson[U]− 2η cosh(µNT )∑~n
Re[P(~n)]
X[U] =∑~n
Im[P(~n)]
ξ = 2η sinh(µNT )
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 7 / 21
Definition of the Density of States
We define the weighted DoS
ρ(x) =
∫D[U] e−Sρ[U] δ(x −X[U]) x ∈ [−xmax , xmax ]
Symmetry Uν(n)→ Uν(n)∗ implies ρ(−x) = ρ(x)
This simplifies the partition function:
Z =
xmax∫−xmax
dx ρ(x)ei2η sinh(µNT )x = 2
xmax∫0
dx ρ(x) cos(2η sinh(µNT )x)
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 8 / 21
Parametrization of the density ρ(x)
Ansatz for the density: ρ(x) = e−L(x)
We divide the interval [0, xmax ] into N intervals In = 0, 1, . . . ,N − 1.
L(x) is continuous and linear on each In, with a slope kn:
0
1
2
3
4
5
∆0 ∆1∆2 ∆3 ∆4∆5 ∆6 ∆N−2 ∆N−1
k0
k1k2
k3
k4 k5k6
kN−2
kN−1
xmax
L(x)
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 9 / 21
Determination of the slopes kn
How do we find the slopes kn?
Restricted expectation values which depend on a parameter λ ∈ R:
〈〈X〉〉n(λ) =1
Zn(λ)
∫D[U] e−Sρ[U]+λX[U] X[U] θn
[X[U]
]Zn(λ) =
∫D[U] e−Sρ[U]+λX[U] θn
[X[U]
]
θn[x]
=
{1 for x ∈ In
0 otherwise
Update with a restricted conventional Monte Carlo
Vary the parameter λ to fully explore the density
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 10 / 21
Functional Fit Approach FFA
Closed expression for Zn(λ) in terms of the density:
Zn(λ) =
xmax∫−xmax
dx ρ(x) eλx θn[x]
=
xn+1∫xn
dx ρ(x) eλx = c
xn+1∫xn
dx e(−kn+λ)x
= ce(λ−kn)xn+1 − e(λ−kn)xn
λ− kn
So for the observable X[U]:
〈〈X〉〉n(λ) =1
Zn(λ)
xn+1∫xn
dx ρ(x) eλx x =∂
∂λln[Zn(λ)
]
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 11 / 21
Functional Fit Approach FFA
Explicit expression for restricted expectation values:
Yn(λ) ≡ 1∆n
[〈〈X〉〉n(λ)− xn
]− 1
2= h((λ− kn)∆n
)h(r) =
11− e−r
− 1r− 1
2Strategy to find kn:
1 Evaluate 〈〈X〉〉n(λ) for different values of λ
2 Fit these Monte Carlo data h((λ− kn)∆n)
3 kn are obtained from simple one parameter fits
All Monte Carlo data are used in the process
Alternative approach: directly find the zero of this function using an iterationalgorithm (LLR algorithm)
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 12 / 21
Properties of the h((λ− kn)∆n) function
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
kn=3
h((λ-kn)Δn)
λ
Δ=0.25Δ=1.00Δ=4.00
FFA: fitting Monte Carlo data with h((λ− kn)∆n)
LLR: finding the zero of h((λ− kn)∆n) with an iteration algorithmMario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 13 / 21
Fit of slopes ⇒ density ρ(x)
Example: 83 × 4, η = 0.04, µ = 0.150
λ15− 10− 5− 0 5 10 15
0.5−
0.4−
0.3−
0.2−
0.1−
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
)λ(nY
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
ln(ρ(x))
x
β=5.40β=5.50β=5.60β=5.70
kn L(x) ρ(x) = e−L(x)
β = 5.40
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 14 / 21
Observables
1 Imaginary part of the Polyakov loop 〈Im[P]〉:
〈Im[P]〉 =1V
12η
∂
∂ sinh(µNT )lnZ
2 ... and the corresponding susceptibility χIm[P]:
χIm[P] =12η
∂
∂ sinh(µNT )Im[P]
3 Related to particle number and its susceptibility
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 15 / 21
A simple check with the susceptibility at µ = 0
For µ = 0 : 〈Im(P)〉 = 0
While χIm(P) 6= 0
Conventional simulation to check consistency our DoS results for χIm(P)
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
χIm[P]
β
Density of States
conventional simulation
Excellent agreement
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 16 / 21
Results for 〈Im[P]〉 at µ 6= 0
Lattice 83 × 4, and η = 0.04:
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
5.40 5.45 5.50 5.55 5.60 5.65 5.70 5.75 5.80
⟨Im[P]⟩
β
µ=0.000
µ=0.075
µ=0.150
µ=0.250
µ=0.350
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 17 / 21
Results for χIm[P] at µ 6= 0
Lattice 83 × 4, and η = 0.04:
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
5.40 5.45 5.50 5.55 5.60 5.65 5.70 5.75 5.80
χIm[P]
β
µ=0.000
µ=0.075
µ=0.150
µ=0.250
µ=0.350
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 18 / 21
Phase transition affects shape of the density
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
ln(ρ(x))
x
β=5.400β=5.500β=5.600β=5.625β=5.650β=5.700β=5.800
Across the phase transition there is a strong change of the shape of the density
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 19 / 21
Position of the critical temperature
At µ = 0 there is a transition with some critical TC (0)
The µ− dependence of the pseudo-critical temperature can be parameterized as:
TC (3µ)
TC (µ = 0)= 1− κ
(3µ
TC (3µ)
)2
We can fit the position of the peaks of the cubic fits of the susceptibility:
0.84
0.88
0.92
0.96
1.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
T/TC(0)
3µ/TC(µ)
κ = 0.012(3)
κ = 0.0149(21) WB collaborationκ = 0.020(4) Cea et all.
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 20 / 21
Conclusions
DoS is a general approach
Crucial: accuracy of ρ to integrate over the rapid oscillating functions
Density ρ is parameterized by the slopes of its exponent
DoS uses a restricted Monte Carlo and probes the density with an additionalBoltzmann weight
LLR: iteratively find the zero of the restricted MC dataFFA: fit all data points produced at different λ
Tested for a theory more similar to QCD: SU(3) LGT with static color sources.Encouraging results.
Mario Giuliani (Universität Graz) SIGN 2017, 24th March 2017 21 / 21