1: %%% file: to.tex
2: %%% 11/10/00
3: \documentstyle[epsf,multicol,aps]{revtex}
4: %\documentstyle[epsf,preprint,aps]{revtex}
5:
6: \def\l{\langle}
7: \def\r{\rangle}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10: \draft
11: \title{
12: Probability-Changing Cluster Algorithm for Potts Models
13: }
14:
15: \author{Yusuke Tomita\cite{tomita} and Yutaka Okabe\cite{okabe}}
16: \address{
17: Department of Physics, Tokyo Metropolitan University,
18: Hachioji, Tokyo 192-0397, Japan
19: }
20:
21: \date{Received \today}
22:
23: \maketitle
24:
25: \begin{abstract}
26: We propose a new effective cluster algorithm of tuning
27: the critical point automatically, which is
28: an extended version of Swendsen-Wang algorithm.
29: We change the probability of connecting spins of
30: the same type, $p = 1 - e^{- J/ k_BT}$, in the process of
31: the Monte Carlo spin update.
32: Since we approach the canonical ensemble asymptotically, we can use
33: the finite-size scaling analysis for physical quantities
34: near the critical point. Simulating the two-dimensional
35: Potts models to demonstrate the validity of the algorithm,
36: we have obtained the critical temperatures and critical exponents
37: which are consistent with the exact values; the comparison has
38: been made with the invaded cluster algorithm.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \pacs{PACS numbers: 05.50.+q, 64.60.Ak, 75.10.Hk}
42:
43: \begin{multicols}{2}
44: \narrowtext
45:
46: Cluster algorithms \cite{sw87,wolff88} have been
47: successfully used to overcome slow dynamics in
48: the Monte Carlo simulation. Swendsen and Wang (SW)
49: \cite{sw87} applied the Kasteleyn-Fortuin (KF) \cite{kf69}
50: representation to identify clusters of spins.
51: The problem of the thermal phase transition is mapped onto
52: the geometric percolation problem in the cluster formalism
53: \cite{kf69,ck80,hu84}. Quite recently, based on the
54: cluster formalism, the multiple-percolating clusters
55: of the Ising system with large aspect ratio have been
56: studied \cite{toh99}.
57:
58: Machta {\it et al.} \cite{machta95} proposed another
59: type of cluster algorithm, which is called the invaded cluster
60: (IC) algorithm; this algorithm samples the critical point of a spin system
61: without {\it a priori} knowledge of the critical temperature.
62: It is in contrast with the usual procedure that one makes
63: simulations for various parameters to determine the
64: critical point. The IC algorithm has been
65: shown to be efficient in studying various physical quantities
66: in the critical region, but the ensemble is not necessarily clear.
67: Moreover, it has a problem of ``bottlenecks",
68: which causes the broad tail in the distribution of
69: the fraction of the accepted satisfied bonds \cite{machta95}.
70:
71: In this Letter, extending the SW algorithm \cite{sw87},
72: we propose a new algorithm of tuning the critical point
73: automatically. The basic idea of our algorithm is that
74: we change the probability of connecting spins of
75: the same type, $p = 1 - e^{- J/ k_BT}$, in the process of
76: the Monte Carlo spin update, where $J$ is the exchange coupling.
77: We decrease or increase $p$ depending on the observation
78: whether the KF clusters are percolating or not percolating.
79: This simple negative feed-back mechanism together with
80: the finite-size scaling (FSS) property of the existence
81: probability (also called the crossing probability) $E_p$,
82: the probability that the system percolates,
83: leads to the determination of the critical point.
84: Since our ensemble is asymptotically canonical
85: as $\Delta p$, the amount of the change of $p$, becomes 0,
86: the distribution functions of physical quantities obey the FSS;
87: as a result, we can determine critical exponents
88: using the FSS analysis.
89:
90: Let us explain the procedure for our probability-changing cluster
91: (PCC) algorithm in detail. As an example, we consider
92: the ferromagnetic $q$-state Potts model \cite{Wu82}
93: whose Hamiltonian is given by
94: %
95: \begin{equation}
96: {\cal H} = -J \sum_{<i,j>} (\delta_{\sigma_i,\sigma_j}-1), \quad
97: \sigma_i = 1, 2, \cdots, q,
98: \label{Hamiltonian}
99: \end{equation}
100: %
101: and for $q$ = 2 this corresponds to an Ising model.
102: The procedure of Monte Carlo spin update is as follows:
103: \begin{enumerate}
104: \item
105: Start from some spin configuration and some value of $p$.
106: \item
107: Construct the KF clusters using the probability $p$, and check
108: whether the system is percolating or not.
109: Update spins following the same rule as the SW algorithm,
110: that is, flip all the spins on any KF cluster to one of
111: $q$ states.
112: \item
113: If the system is percolating (not percolating) in the previous test,
114: decrease (increase) $p$ by $\Delta p \ (>0)$.
115: \item
116: Back to the process 2.
117: \end{enumerate}
118:
119: After repeating the above processes, the distribution of $p$
120: for our Monte Carlo samples approaches the Gaussian distribution
121: of which mean value is $p_c(L)$; $p_c(L)$ is the probability
122: of connecting spins, such that the existence probability
123: $E_p$ becomes 1/2. The width of the distribution depends on
124: the choice of $\Delta p$ in the process 2, and becomes 0
125: in the limit of $\Delta p \rightarrow 0$.
126: We should note that $p_c(L)$ depends on the system size $L$,
127: and $E_p$ follows the FSS near the critical point,
128: %
129: \begin{equation}
130: E_p(p,L) \sim X(t L^{1/\nu}), \quad t=(p_c-p)/p_c ,
131: \label{scale}
132: \end{equation}
133: %
134: where $p_c$ is the critical value of $p$ for the infinite system
135: ($L \rightarrow \infty$), and $\nu$ is
136: the correlation-length critical exponent.
137: (As for the FSS of $E_p$, see Ref.~\cite{hlc95}, for example.)
138: We can estimate $p_c$ from the size dependence of $p_c(L)$
139: using Eq.~(\ref{scale}) and, in turn, estimate $T_c$
140: through the relation $p_c = 1 - e^{- J/ k_BT_c}$.
141: We have chosen the value of $E_p$ which gives $p_c(L)$ as 1/2
142: because it is the simplest.
143: We may modify the update process such that this value is
144: different from 1/2.
145:
146: A comment should be made here on the choice
147: of criterion to determine percolating.
148: Machta {\it et al.} \cite{machta95} used both the extension
149: rule and the topological rule for their stopping condition.
150: The former rule is that some cluster has maximum extent $L$
151: in at least one of the $d$ directions in $d$-dimensional systems.
152: The latter rule is that some cluster winds around the system
153: in at least one of the $d$ directions. We can use any rule
154: to determine percolating, but FSS functions for physical quantities,
155: therefore $p_c(L)$, depend on the rule.
156:
157: There is one free parameter in our algorithm; we may choose
158: the difference $\Delta p$ in the process 3.
159: In the limit of small $\Delta p$ we obtain the canonical
160: ensemble, but it takes a long time to equilibrate
161: for small $\Delta p$. Practically, we may start with
162: rather large $\Delta p$, and switch to smaller $\Delta p$
163: with monitoring the trail of the values of $p$.
164: Small steps of preparation are enough for equilibration.
165:
166: In order to show the validity of the present method, we have
167: made simulations for the $2d$ ferromagnetic 2-state Potts model
168: (Ising model) and 3-state Potts model. We have treated
169: the systems with linear sizes $L$ = 64, 128, 256, and 512.
170: We start with $\Delta p=0.01$, and gradually decrease $\Delta p$
171: to the final value. We have chosen this final value of $\Delta p$
172: as $1/(20 \times L^2)$; the steps for preparation are 10,000
173: for the largest size ($L=512$). After reaching the final small
174: value of $\Delta p$, we have taken 100,000 (200,000) Monte Carlo
175: samples in the case of $q=2$ ($q=3$) with keeping $\Delta p$
176: as constant. From each bond configuration, we have made
177: 5 (10) spin configurations in order to get better statistics
178: for magnetization in the case of $q=2$ ($q=3$).
179: We have performed several runs for each size,
180: and have checked the statistical errors.
181:
182: %%%
183: \begin{figure}
184: \epsfxsize=0.95\linewidth
185: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig1.eps}}
186: \vspace{2mm}
187: \caption{
188: Plot of $T_c(L)$ (in units of $J/k_B$) as a function of $L^{-1/\nu}$
189: for the $2d$ Ising model ($q=2$), where $\nu$=1.
190: The system sizes are $L$ = 64, 128, 256, and 512.
191: In the inset, the distribution of $p$, $f(p)$, for $L=64$ with
192: the topological rule is shown for both the PCC and IC algorithms.
193: Different scales are used for the vertical axis in the inset
194: to express two quite different data.
195: }
196: \label{fig1}
197: \end{figure}
198: %%%
199: Let us show the results of the $2d$ Ising model ($q=2$).
200: In Fig.~\ref{fig1}, we plot the size dependence of $T_c(L)$
201: for both rules in units of $J/k_B$.
202: We have determined $p_c(L)$ from the average of $p$, and
203: calculated $T_c(L)$ through the relation
204: $p_c(L) = 1 - e^{- J/ k_BT_c(L)}$.
205: In this plot, as an illustration, we have used
206: the known value of $\nu$ for the $2d$ Ising model ($\nu=1$).
207: Using the least square method, we estimate $T_c$ as 1.1344(2)
208: (1.1346(2))
209: for the extension (topological) rule, which is consistent
210: with the exact value, $[\ln (1+\sqrt{2})]^{-1}$ = 1.1346.
211: Here, the number in the parenthesis denotes the uncertainty in the
212: last digit.
213: We have used the known value of $\nu$ but we may treat $\nu$
214: as an unknown parameter to be determined.
215: Assuming the FSS relation,
216: $ T_c(L) = T_c + a L^{-1/\nu}$,
217: which is derived from Eq.~(\ref{scale}),
218: we may follow the three-parameter ($T_c, 1/\nu, a$)
219: non-linear fitting procedure. Then, we have obtained
220: ($T_c, 1/\nu$)=(1.1345(2), 1.00(4)) for the extension rule,
221: and (1.1344(2), 1.04(4)) for the topological rule.
222: Both estimates of $T_c$ and $\nu$
223: are consistent with the exact values.
224:
225: We plot the distribution of $p$, $f(p)$, for $L=64$ with
226: the topological rule, as an example, in the inset of
227: Fig.~\ref{fig1}, which shows that the distribution of $p$
228: is sharply peaked at 0.58196 with the standard deviation
229: of 0.0004 for our choice of the final $\Delta p$.
230: For comparison, we also show $f(p)$ for the IC algorithm
231: of the same size with the same rule;
232: different scales are used for the vertical axis in the inset
233: to express two quite different data.
234: We notice that
235: the distribution of $p$ for the IC algorithm is far broader.
236: A simple linear analysis yields that the width of
237: the distribution for the PCC algorithm is proportional
238: to $\sqrt{\Delta p/a}$, where $a$ is the value of $dE_p/dp$
239: at $p_c(L)$; using the FSS we expect $a \propto L^{1/\nu}$.
240: It should be noted that we have obtained the expected
241: $\Delta p$- and $L$-dependence for the width of
242: the distribution of $p$.
243: We use the average value of $p$ for the estimate of $p_c(L)$.
244: Performing 10 runs, we have estimated $p_c(64)$
245: as $0.581954 \pm 0.000013$; the statistical errors
246: are very small.
247:
248: %%%
249: \vspace{5mm}
250: \begin{figure}
251: \epsfxsize=0.95\linewidth
252: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig2.eps}}
253: \vspace{2mm}
254: \caption{
255: The energy histogram, $f(E)$, of both the PCC and IC algorithms
256: for $L=64$ with the topological rule for the 2d Ising model ($q=2$).
257: The energy is measured in units of $J$.
258: The energy histogram obtained by the constant-temperature
259: calculation using the SW algorithm is also shown by a solid curve;
260: the temperature has been chosen as
261: $T_c(L)$ determined by the PCC algorithm.
262: }
263: \label{fig2}
264: \end{figure}
265: %%%
266:
267: %%%
268: \begin{figure}
269: \epsfxsize=0.95\linewidth
270: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig3.eps}}
271: \vspace{2mm}
272: \caption{
273: Plot of $\l m^2 \r$ as a function of $L$
274: for the $2d$ Ising model ($q=2$) in logarithmic scale.
275: }
276: \label{fig3}
277: \end{figure}
278: %%%
279: The resulting energy histogram, $f(E)$, of our PCC algorithm for
280: $L=64$ with the topological rule is given in Fig.~\ref{fig2}.
281: The energy histogram obtained by the constant-temperature
282: calculation using the SW algorithm is shown
283: by a solid curve in Fig.~\ref{fig2};
284: the temperature has been chosen as
285: $T_c(L)$ determined by the PCC algorithm.
286: The energy histogram of the PCC algorithm is indistinguishable
287: from that by the constant-temperature calculation
288: because of the sharp distribution of $p$.
289: Thus, we may say that our ensemble is actually canonical
290: for small enough $\Delta p$.
291: The energy histogram of the IC algorithm, which is also
292: given in Fig.~\ref{fig2}, has broad tails
293: for both high-energy and low-energy sides.
294: %%%
295: Although our ensemble is almost canonical, there are
296: deviations in physical quantities, in principle;
297: the variance of energy, $\l E^2 \r - \l E \r^2$,
298: becomes larger with non-zero $\Delta p$, for example.
299: We have checked the $\Delta p$-dependence of the systematic
300: deviation for large $\Delta p$. However, the deviation of
301: the variance of energy is smaller than the statistical error,
302: 2 \% for $L=64$, with our choice of $\Delta p$.
303:
304: %%%
305: \begin{figure}
306: \epsfxsize=0.95\linewidth
307: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig4.eps}}
308: \vspace{2mm}
309: \caption{
310: FSS plot of $p(m)$
311: for the $2d$ Ising model ($q$=2), where $\beta/\nu$=1/8.
312: The rules to determine percolating are the extension rule (a)
313: and the topological rule (b).
314: }
315: \label{fig4}
316: \end{figure}
317: %%%
318: In order to estimate another critical exponent $\beta$,
319: the magnetization exponent, we plot the average of the squared
320: magnetization $\l m^2 \r$ as a function of $L$
321: in logarithmic scale in Fig.~\ref{fig3}.
322: Since our Monte Carlo samples are sharply peaked at $p=p_c(L)$,
323: in other words, at $T=T_c(L)$, we can use the FSS relation,
324: %
325: \begin{equation}
326: \l m^2 \r_{\, T=T_c(L)} \sim L^{-2\beta/\nu},
327: \label{scale_m}
328: \end{equation}
329: %
330: for the estimate of $\beta/\nu$. From the slopes of the data
331: for both rules, we have $\beta/\nu$ = 0.125(2) (0.126(2))
332: for the extension (topological) rule, which is
333: consistent with the exact value, 1/8 (=0.125).
334:
335: It is quite interesting to study the distribution function
336: of physical quantities. We show the FSS plot of the distribution
337: function $p(m)$ in Fig.~\ref{fig4}, based on the FSS relation,
338: %
339: \begin{equation}
340: p(m)_{\, T=T_c(L)} \sim L^{\beta/\nu} f(mL^{\beta/\nu}) .
341: \label{scale_pm}
342: \end{equation}
343: %
344: The scaling plot for the extension rule (a)
345: and that for the topological rule (b) are given there.
346: The data for various sizes are collapsed on a single curve.
347: We have very good FSS behavior for both rules.
348: Two rules give different $t L^{1/\nu}$ in Eq.~(\ref{scale})
349: for $E_p=1/2$.
350: It is easier to percolate for the extension rule compared
351: with the topological rule. Therefore, $T_c(L)$ of the extension rule
352: is higher than that of the topological rule,
353: which results in the difference
354: in the FSS functions for $p(m)$ between two rules.
355:
356: %%%
357: \begin{figure}
358: \epsfxsize=0.95\linewidth
359: \centerline{\epsfbox{fig5.eps}}
360: \vspace{2mm}
361: \caption{
362: Plot of $T_c(L)$ (in units of $J/k_B$) as a function of
363: $L^{-1/\nu}$ for the $2d$ 3-state Potts model, where $\nu$=5/6.
364: The system sizes are $L$ = 64, 128, 256, and 512.
365: }
366: \label{fig5}
367: \end{figure}
368: %%%
369: Next turn to the case of the 3-state Potts model.
370: The size dependence of $T_c(L)$ for both rules is shown
371: in Fig.~\ref{fig5}. We have used the known value of
372: $\nu$ for this plot;
373: the exponent $\nu$ for the $2d$ 3-state Potts model
374: conjectured by the conformal field theory \cite{Dotsenko84} is 5/6.
375: We estimate the extrapolated value of $T_c$ as
376: 0.99490(6) (0.99494(6)) for the extension (topological) rule
377: from Fig.~\ref{fig5}. This value is consistent with the exact value,
378: $[\ln (1+\sqrt{3})]^{-1}$ = 0.99497. The convergence is very good
379: for the 3-state Potts model.
380: It is in contrast with the situation of the IC
381: algorithm \cite{machta95}, where the convergence is
382: not good enough maybe due to the problem of ``bottlenecks".
383:
384: We can estimate the critical exponent $\beta/\nu$ for the
385: 3-state Potts model from the size dependence of $\l m^2 \r$
386: as in the case of the Ising model.
387: For the order parameter of the 3-state Potts model,
388: we use the vector order parameter $(m_x,m_y)$.
389: The $x$ and $y$ components of the vector order parameter
390: are obtained from the three components,
391: $m_1, m_2$ and $m_3$, as
392: $ m_x = m_1 - (1/2)(m_2+m_3) $
393: and
394: $ m_y = (\sqrt{3}/2)(m_2-m_3)$.
395: Using the FSS relation (\ref{scale_m})
396: for the 3-state Potts model, we have $\beta/\nu$ = 0.131(2) (0.134(2))
397: for the extension (topological) rule, which is again consistent
398: with the conjectured value, 2/15 (=0.1333) \cite{Dotsenko84}.
399: We have also found nice FSS behavior for
400: the order-parameter distribution functions $p(m)$ of
401: the 3-state Potts model as in the case of the Ising model.
402: Here, $m$ stands for the absolute value of
403: the vector order parameter.
404: The details will be given in a separate paper.
405:
406: Here we may remark on the computation time.
407: We only need to modify
408: the code of the SW algorithm slightly in order to change $p$.
409: The typical computation time to get $10^5$ Monte Carlo samples
410: for $L=64$ is 471 seconds using the Alpha 21164A (533 MHz) machine,
411: which is about 30 \% longer than that for the SW algorithm, 361 seconds.
412: The most of time is spent on the usual procedure
413: of the SW algorithm, that is, the assignment of the cluster
414: and the cluster spin update.
415: With a small cost of computation time, we can determine
416: the critical point automatically without making simulations
417: for various parameters. In contrast, it takes 958 seconds
418: in the case of the IC algorithm to get $10^5$ samples for $L=64$
419: because one should check whether the system is percolating
420: several times before getting one Monte Carlo sample.
421:
422: To summarize, we have proposed a new cluster algorithm
423: of tuning the critical point automatically.
424: Our algorithm is the extension of the SW algorithm \cite{sw87},
425: but we change the probability of connecting spins $p$
426: in the process of Monte Carlo spin update. The resulting
427: distribution of $p$ is sharply peaked at $p_c(L)$. We approach
428: the canonical ensemble in the limit of small $\Delta p$,
429: which has been explicitly checked by the energy histogram.
430: This is in contrast with the histogram of the IC
431: algorithms \cite{machta95}, which has broad tails
432: for both high-energy and low-energy sides.
433: Thus, we can use the FSS analysis for the physical quantities.
434: The estimated values of the critical temperatures and the critical
435: exponents for the $2d$ Potts models are consistent with
436: the exact values.
437: In order to get more accurate estimate of
438: the critical point and critical exponents, the FSS analysis
439: employed by Ferrenberg and Landau \cite{FL91}
440: in a high-resolution Monte Carlo study is useful for the data
441: obtained by the PCC algorithm;
442: we extract $\nu$ first, and with $\nu$ determined
443: quite accurately we can estimate $T_c$.
444: Since the main purpose of
445: the present Letter is to present a new and simple idea
446: of the cluster algorithm, the refined data analysis
447: including the corrections to FSS will be left to
448: a subsequent study.
449:
450: In the present study, we have shown the application of
451: the PCC algorithm to the thermal phase
452: transition of Potts models, but the idea is based only on the property
453: of a percolation problem. Thus, of course, we can use this algorithm
454: in the study of the geometric percolation problem, that is,
455: the $q=1$ Potts model, to get the percolation threshold, $p_c$,
456: and various critical properties.
457:
458: Moreover, we can apply the PCC algorithm
459: to any problem where the mapping to the cluster formalism exists.
460: It is straightforward to apply this algorithm to the diluted
461: Ising (Potts) model. The lack of self-averaging has been recently
462: discussed for the three-dimensional diluted Ising model
463: \cite{AH96,WD98}. The PCC algorithm is quite useful
464: for the problem with the lack of self-averaging, where
465: the distribution of $T_c$ due to the randomness is important,
466: because we can tune the critical point of each
467: random sample automatically.
468: Another direction of application is the cluster quantum
469: Monte Carlo simulation \cite{Evertz93,Kawashima94}, and this problem
470: is left to a future study.
471:
472: We would like to thank N. Kawashima and M. Kikuchi
473: for valuable discussions.
474: This work was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research
475: from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, Japan.
476:
477: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
478: \begin{references}
479:
480: \vspace*{-12mm}
481: \bibitem[*]{tomita} Electronic address: ytomita@phys.metro-u.ac.jp
482: \bibitem[\dagger]{okabe} Electronic address: okabe@phys.metro-u.ac.jp
483:
484: \bibitem{sw87}
485: R. H. Swendsen and J. S. Wang,
486: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 58}, 86 (1987).
487: \bibitem{wolff88}
488: U. Wolff,
489: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 60}, 1461 (1988).
490:
491: \bibitem{kf69}
492: P. W. Kasteleyn and C. M. Fortuin,
493: J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. Suppl. {\bf 26}, 11 (1969);
494: C. M. Fortuin and P. W. Kasteleyn,
495: Physica {\bf 57}, 536 (1972).
496:
497: \bibitem{ck80}
498: A. Coniglio and W. Klein,
499: J. Phys. A {\bf 13}, 2775 (1980).
500:
501: \bibitem{hu84}
502: C.-K. Hu,
503: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 29}, 5103 (1984); {\bf 29}, 5109 (1984).
504:
505: \bibitem{toh99}
506: Y. Tomita, Y. Okabe, and C.-K. Hu,
507: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 60}, 2716 (1999).
508:
509: \bibitem{machta95}
510: J. Machta, Y. S. Choi, A. Lucke, T. Schweizer, and L. V. Chayes,
511: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 2792 (1995);
512: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 54}, 1332 (1996).
513:
514: \bibitem{Wu82} F. Y. Wu,
515: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 54}, 235 (1982) and references therein.
516:
517: \bibitem{hlc95} C.-K. Hu, C.-Y. Lin, and J.-A. Chen,
518: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 75}, 193 (1995); {\bf 75}, 2786E (1995).
519:
520: \bibitem{Dotsenko84} Vl. S. Dotsenko,
521: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 235} [FS11], 54 (1984).
522:
523: \bibitem{FL91} A. M. Ferrenberg and D. P. Landau,
524: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 44}, 5081 (1991).
525:
526: \bibitem{AH96} A. Aharony and A. B. Harris,
527: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 77}, 3700 (1996).
528: \bibitem{WD98} S. Wiseman and E. Domany,
529: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 81}, 22 (1998);
530: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 58}, 2938 (1998).
531:
532: \bibitem{Evertz93} H. G. Evertz, G. Lana, and M. Marcu,
533: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 875 (1993).
534:
535: \bibitem{Kawashima94} N. Kawashima and J. E. Gubernatis,
536: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 1295 (1994).
537: \end{references}
538:
539: \end{multicols}
540: \end{document}
541: