Dual geometric worm algorithm for two-dimensional discrete classical lattice models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a dual geometrical worm algorithm for two-dimensional Ising models. The existence of such dual algorithms was first pointed out by Prokof'ev and Svistunov [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 160601 (2001)]]. The algorithm is defined on the dual lattice and is formulated in terms of bond variables and can therefore be generalized to other two-dimensional models that can be formulated in terms of bond variables. We also discuss two related algorithms formulated on the direct lattice, applicable in any dimension. These latter algorithms turn out to be less efficient but of considerable intrinsic interest. We show how such algorithms quite generally can be "directed" by minimizing the probability for the worms to erase themselves. Explicit proofs of detailed balance are given for all the algorithms. In terms of computational efficiency the dual geometrical worm algorithm is comparable to well known cluster algorithms such as the Swendsen-Wang and Wolff algorithms, however, it is quite different in structure and allows for a very simple and efficient implementation. The dual algorithm also allows for a very elegant way of calculating the domain wall free energy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".