1: \documentclass[10pt,pre,aps,twocolumn,showpacs,superscriptaddress,floatfix]{revtex4}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: %\input epsf.sty

4: %My short-cut commands

5: 

6: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

7: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

8: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

9: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\down}{\downarrow}

11: \newcommand{\up}{\uparrow}

12: \newcommand{\f}{\frac}

13: 

14: %\bibliographystyle{apsrev}\title{}

15: 

16: \begin{document}

17: 

18: \title{Directed-loop Monte Carlo simulations of vertex models}

19: 

20: \author{Olav F.~Sylju{\aa}sen}

21: \affiliation{NORDITA, Blegdamsvej 17, Copenhagen {\O}, DK-2100

22: Denmark} \email{sylju@nordita.dk}

23: \author{M. B.~Zvonarev}

24: \affiliation{\O rsted Laboratory, Niels Bohr Institute for APG,

25: Universitetsparken 5, Copenhagen {\O}, DK 2100, Denmark}

26: \email{zvonarev@fys.ku.dk}

27: %\thanks{Thanks to....}

28: 

29: \date{\today}

30: 

31: \pacs{05.50.+q, 05.10.Ln, 02.30.Ik}

32: \preprint{NORDITA-2004-004}

33: 

34: \begin{abstract}

35: We show how the directed-loop Monte Carlo algorithm can be applied

36: to study vertex models. The algorithm is employed to calculate the

37: arrow polarization in the six-vertex model with the domain wall

38: boundary conditions (DWBC). The model exhibits spatially separated

39: ordered and ``disordered'' regions. We show how the boundary

40: between these regions depends on parameters of the model. We give

41: some predictions on the behavior of the polarization in the

42: thermodynamic limit and discuss the relation to the Arctic Circle theorem.

43: 

44: \end{abstract}

45: 

46: \maketitle

47: 

48: \section{Introduction}

49: Vertex models have a long and distinguished history in physics.

50: Their fame is intimately connected to the concept of

51: integrability, and the exact solutions of the

52: six-vertex~\cite{Lieb} and the eight-vertex~\cite{Baxter-82}

53: models with periodic boundary conditions (PBC) are indeed

54: milestones in physics. Despite being exactly solvable, there are

55: questions about these models that cannot easily be answered. An

56: example is the influence of boundary conditions on correlation

57: functions. While boundary conditions are not normally important in

58: the thermodynamic limit, they have a profound influence on the

59: vertex models. Exact studies, made for the six-vertex model with

60: the domain wall boundary conditions (DWBC)~\cite{KBI-93} show this

61: in particular. These studies were restricted to certain points in

62: the phase diagram, and involve rather sophisticated mathematical

63: methods. It is thus appropriate to complement them with Monte

64: Carlo simulations.

65: 

66: The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that the

67: directed-loop Monte Carlo algorithm developed for quantum spin

68: systems~\cite{SS} can be used as an effective tool to study vertex

69: models. The discussion of the algorithm will be kept general, but

70: when demonstrating its use we will focus on the six-vertex model

71: with the DWBC, a model which is difficult to simulate using other

72: known Monte Carlo algorithms.

73: 

74: \section{Monte Carlo algorithm}

75: In a vertex model, each vertex have edges with an Ising-like

76: variable, an arrow, that points either away from or into the

77: vertex. The arrangement of arrows around the vertex determines the

78: vertex weight. Two vertices are joined by their common edge,

79: sharing the arrow on the edge. In general there are no

80: restrictions on which vertices are joined, however for traditional

81: vertex models nearest-neighbor vertices are joined together. The

82: Monte Carlo algorithm discussed here always flips two (or zero)

83: arrows on a vertex, thus it is limited to models where an even

84: number of arrows are pointing away from each vertex. Most vertex

85: models of interest obey this rule.

86: 

87: In visualizing the directed-loop Monte Carlo algorithm, originally

88: developed for quantum

89: systems~\cite{SS}, it is helpful to cut every edge into two pieces,

90: each piece having an arrow belonging to a specific vertex,

91: Fig.~\ref{algorithm}.

92: \begin{figure}

93: \includegraphics[clip,width=6cm]{fig1.eps}

94: \caption{Illustration of the directed-loop algorithm. Vertex edges

95: are drawn with two arrows allowing the discontinuity at the head

96: and tail of the loop to be shown. The thick line shows the loop path

97: along which the arrows has been flipped. The loop closes when the

98: loop head (thick arrow) hits the loop tail (vertical

99: bar).\label{algorithm}}

100: \end{figure}

101: \begin{figure}

102: \begin{center}

103: \includegraphics[clip,width=8.5cm]{fig2.eps}

104: \end{center}

105: \caption{The vertices of the eight-vertex model and their

106: statistical weights.} \label{vertices}

107: \end{figure}

108: For a valid vertex configuration the arrows on the two parts of an edge

109: must have the same orientation. The directed-loop

110: algorithm is as follows: Pick a random vertex $v_1$ and a random

111: edge belonging to that vertex. Based on these choices select in a

112: probabilistic manner another edge belonging to $v_1$ and name

113: that the out-edge. Then flip the arrows on both the part of the

114: in-edge and the part of the out-edge belonging to $v_1$. This

115: introduces two discontinuities in the arrow configurations on the

116: edges, one on the starting in-edge and another one on the out-edge.

117: The new configuration is thus not an allowed vertex configuration.

118: To repair this, the out-edge discontinuity is moved by repeating

119: the procedure on the vertex connected to the out-edge $v_2$, this

120: time using the out-edge of $v_1$ and the in-edge on $v_2$. The

121: process is stopped when the out-edge selected is the starting

122: edge, thus healing all discontinuities. In this way arrows are

123: flipped as a loop is constructed, and a new allowed vertex configuration is arrived at when the loop closes.

124: 

125: In order to determine the probabilities for selecting out-edges and to see how detailed balance is satisfied one needs to consider also the probability for the reverse update. The reverse update consists of traversing the same loop in the opposite direction while flipping arrows back.

126: As is explained in detail in Ref.~\cite{SS}, detailed

127: balance is satisfied for the whole loop construction, if detailed

128: balance is satisfied in each edge selecting step, for which the

129: criterion is as follows: Let $w$ be the weight of the vertex $v$

130: before edge-flips, then the probability $P(v,i \to o)$ for exiting

131: at the out-edge $o$, given that the in-edge is $i$, should satisfy

132: \be

133: \label{detbal1}

134:      w P(v, i \to o) = w^\prime P(v^\prime, o \to i),

135: \ee where $w^\prime$ is the weight of the vertex $v^\prime$

136: obtained by flipping the arrows on edges $i$ and $o$ belonging to

137: the vertex $v$.

138: Notice that $P(v^\prime, o \to i)$, on the right hand side, describes an edge-selecting step in the reverse update process

139: where the loop is traversed in the opposite direction to that described

140: on the left hand side.

141: The loop construction should not terminate in the edge-selecting step, thus

142: \be

143: \label{detbal2}

144:      \sum_o P(v,i \to o) = 1,

145: \ee

146: where the sum is taken over all possible out-edges, including

147: the in-edge $i$.

148: 

149: This algorithm resembles closely the ice model algorithm invented by Rahman and Stillinger~\cite{Rahman}, generalized to arbitrary couplings by Barkema and Newman~\cite{BN}.

150: In fact, at the point in parameter space where all vertex weights are equal our algorithm is identical to the long-loop version of the ice model algorithm. However away from this point,

151: Barkema and Newman's algorithm involves accepting or rejecting

152: the loop after it has been constructed. The directed-loop algorithm has

153: no such accept/reject step. A comparison of integrated autocorrelation

154: times for the directed-loop algorithm and the short-loop algorithm of Barkema and Newman are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:Autocorr}.

155: The autocorrelation times are measured in units of lattice sweeps. One lattice sweep corresponds to a number of elementary loop moves such that on average each vertex on the lattice have been visited twice. In

156: defining visited we include parts of the loop where the loop bounces off a

157: vertex (relevant for the directed-loop algorithm) and

158: the neck part of short-loops. Neither the bounces nor the short-loop-necks

159: contribute to changes in the vertex configuration.

160: However they are intrinsic parts of the algorithms and

161: requires computer effort, and should therefore be accounted for.

162: 

163: The upper panel of Fig.~\ref{Fig:Autocorr} shows integrated autocorrelation times of the observable counting the number of $c$-type vertices in each configuration. This observables was chosen to compare with the performance results in Ref.~\cite{BN}. While the integrated autocorrelation times are larger for the short-loop algorithm the scaling with system size appears to be equal for both

164: algorithms. The lower panel shows integrated autocorrelation times for the total arrow-polarization in the y-direction. These scales much worse for the short-loop algorithm than for the directed-loop algorithm. This is to be expected from the fact that most loops accepted in the short-loop algorithm are small, while large loops that wind around the boundary of the lattice is needed to change the total polarization. These are not suppressed in the directed-loop algorithm, thus leading to better performance.

165: 

166: \begin{figure}

167: \begin{center}

168: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{fig3.eps}

169: \end{center}

170: \caption{ Integrated autocorrelation times for number of $c$-type

171: vertices (upper panel) and the total polarization in the

172: $y$-direction (lower panel) for the directed-loop algorithm (open

173: symbols) and the short-loop Barkema-Newman algorithm (closed

174: symbols). The data shown is for the symmetric six-vertex model on

175: an $N \times N$ square lattice with PBC and vertex weights $a=b=2$

176: and $c=1$.  \label{Fig:Autocorr}}

177: \end{figure}

178: 

179: The Eqs.~(\ref{detbal1}) and (\ref{detbal2}) form several coupled sets which

180: in most cases are under-determined. There are thus many solutions

181: for the out-edge selection probabilities $P$.

182: Some general solutions and analysis of their efficiency for

183: different quantum systems were reported in Ref.~\cite{Olav}.

184: Here we employ the solution B in Ref.~\cite{Olav} to the

185: eight-vertex model, but solutions for higher-vertex models are not

186: hard to find as well. The allowed vertices for the eight-vertex

187: model and their statistical weights are shown in

188: Fig.~\ref{vertices}. To shorten notation, we consider the

189: so-called symmetric case: the statistical weights, $a,$ $b,$ $c,$

190: and $d,$ of the allowed states are assumed to be invariant under

191: the simultaneous reversal of all arrows. The generalization of the

192: algorithm to the non-symmetric case can be performed easily.

193: 

194: Let $W_1, \dots ,W_4$ be the vertex weights $a,b,c,d$ of the

195: eight-vertex model ordered so that $W_1 \geq W_2 \geq W_3 \geq

196: W_4$. Then the probability for picking the out-edge on a vertex

197: with weight $W_i$ resulting in a new vertex weight $W_j$ after

198: flipping arrows is $t_{ij}/W_i,$ where $t_{ij}=t_{ji}$

199: and the non-zero entries of the $4\times4$ matrix $t$ are

200: \bea

201:     t_{12} & = & (W_1 + W_2 -W_3 -W_4)/2 , \nonumber \\

202:     t_{13} & = & (W_1 - W_2 +W_3 -W_4)/2 , \label{rules} \\

203:     t_{23} & = & (-W_1 + W_2 +W_3 +W_4)/2 , \nonumber \\

204:     t_{14} & = & W_4 , \nonumber

205: \eea

206: when $W_1-W_2-W_3-W_4 \leq 0$. Otherwise one needs to include

207: bounces in which the out-edge coincides with the in-edge. In this

208: case a solution can be chosen as follows: \bea

209:     t_{11} & = & W_1 - W_2 -W_3 -W_4 , \nonumber \\

210:     t_{1j} & = & t_{j1} = W_j, \quad j=2,3,4,  \\

211:     t_{ij} & = & 0, \quad {\rm otherwise}. \nonumber

212: \label{rules2}

213: \eea

214: 

215: The directed-loop algorithm satisfies ergodicity as any

216: configuration can be obtained from another configuration by

217: flipping spins along a finite number of (possibly overlapping)

218: loops. This process is exactly the directed-loop update, thus

219: ergodicity follows.

220: 

221: The algorithm presented here has many similar features to the loop

222: algorithm~\cite{Evertz}. The loop algorithm breakup rules for the

223: symmetric eight-vertex model can be chosen identical to

224: Eq.~(\ref{rules}), as can be seen from Ref.~\cite{Kawashima},

225: whenever the weights are such that no bounces are needed in the

226: directed-loop algorithm. However in parameter regimes where bounces are

227: needed, the related feature in the loop algorithm is to ``freeze''

228: independent loops together. Bounces and ``freezing'' of loops are

229: very different in how they act to change the

230: configuration. While bounces is a local resistance to changing a

231: vertex, ``freezing'' causes big non-local changes of the vertex

232: configuration. There are also other differences: For general

233: vertex models the set of non-freezing/bouncefree solutions is

234: always smaller for the loop algorithm than for the directed-loop

235: algorithm. This allows the directed-loop algorithm to be efficient

236: in a larger region of parameter space than the loop algorithm. In

237: particular this applies to the asymmetric eight-vertex model.

238: 

239: Note that the need for bounces is generally not so crucial for

240: higher-vertex models with many weights of the same magnitude, thus

241: we expect that the directed-loop algorithm should work well in

242: simulating these. Note also that an algorithm based on the

243: directed-loop idea was recently demonstrated to be effective in

244: simulating classical integer-valued link-current

245: models~\cite{Alet}.

246: 

247: \section{Six-vertex model with the DWBC}

248: The six-vertex model with the DWBC was introduced in

249: Ref.~\cite{K-82} in connection with the calculation of the

250: correlation functions for exactly solvable $1+1$ dimensional

251: models~\cite{KBI-93}.

252: \begin{figure}

253: \begin{center}

254: \includegraphics[clip,width=7cm]{fig4.eps}

255: \end{center}

256: \caption{The domain wall boundary conditions. Shown is an $N

257: \times N$ lattice. The total number of vertices is $N^2$. The $x$

258: and $y$ coordinates take integer values at the midpoints of the

259: horizontal edges. \label{DWBC}}

260: \end{figure}

261: Here we recall the definition of the model in brief, referring for

262: further details to the Ref.~\cite{BPZ-02} where a more detailed

263: description of the model and a comprehensive list of references

264: are given.

265: 

266: The model is defined on an $N\times N$ square lattice; the

267: thermodynamic limit corresponds to $N\to\infty.$ There are six

268: possible states at each vertex: one should set $d=0$ in the

269: eight-vertex model defined above, Fig.~\ref{vertices}. The model

270: is symmetric: the statistical weights, $a,$ $b,$ and $c,$ of the

271: allowed states are assumed to be invariant under the simultaneous

272: reversal of all arrows. Hence, the model is characterized by only

273: two parameters, which can be taken to be $a/c$ and $b/c$. We set

274: $c=1$ henceforth.

275: 

276: The DWBC imply that all arrows on the top and bottom of the

277: lattice are pointing inward, while all arrows on the left and

278: right boundaries are pointing outward, Fig.~\ref{DWBC}.

279: 

280: To investigate the spatially inhomogeneous behavior of this model

281: we focus on the polarization, $\chi_N(x,y)$~\cite{BPZ-02,BKZ-02},

282: which is the ensemble average of the arrow direction on the edge

283: with coordinates $(x,y)$ on the $N \times N$ lattice. The

284: coordinate system used is shown in Fig.~\ref{DWBC}. Due to the

285: symmetry of the model it is sufficient to consider the

286: polarization of the horizontal arrows only. The value $+1$ ($-1$)

287: is assigned to an arrow pointing to the right (left) and the

288: ensemble average is assumed to be normalized by dividing by the

289: partition function. Therefore, $\chi_N$ lies between $-1$ and $1.$

290: 

291: Obviously, $\chi_N$ is independent of the coordinates of the edge

292: in case of PBC. For these boundary conditions $\chi_N$ is known in

293: the thermodynamic limit, and exhibits ferroelectric order,

294: antiferroelectric (AF) order or no order, depending on the

295: position on the $(a,b)$ plane. Thus, three phases exist in the

296: six-vertex model with PBC: ferroelectric, antiferroelectric, and

297: disordered phase. In Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram} the phase diagram on

298: the $(a,b)$ plane for the model with PBC is plotted (cf., Fig.~8.5

299: of Ref.~\cite{Baxter-82}).

300:  \unitlength=1pt

301: \begin{figure}

302: \begin{center}

303: \includegraphics[clip,width=5cm]{fig5.eps}

304: \end{center}

305: \caption{The phase diagram of the six-vertex model in terms of the

306: weights $a$ and $b$. One has $\Delta>1$ in the regions

307: $\mathrm{I}$ and $\mathrm{II},$ $-1<\Delta<1$ in the region

308: $\mathrm{III},$ and $\Delta<-1$ in the region $\mathrm{IV}.$ The

309: dotted quartercircle corresponds to $\Delta=0.$}

310: \label{Fig:diagram}

311: \end{figure}

312: 

313: Introduce a parameter $\Delta$ by the formula

314: \begin{equation}

315: \Delta=\frac{a^2+b^2-1}{2ab}.

316: \end{equation}

317: The case $\Delta>1$ (regions $\mathrm{I}$ and $\mathrm{II}$ in

318: Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}) corresponds to the ferroelectric phase;

319: the case $-1<\Delta<1$ (region $\mathrm{III}$ in

320: Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}) to the disordered phase; the case

321: $\Delta<-1$ (region $\mathrm{IV}$ in Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}) to

322: the AF phase.

323: 

324: Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram} may be considered as the phase diagram for

325: the model with the DWBC, in the sense that the free energy takes a

326: different analytic form in the regions $\mathrm I$ through

327: $\mathrm{IV}$ (see Ref.~\cite{ZJ-00} for details). But, in case of

328: the DWBC the polarization $\chi_N$ depends on the position of the

329: edge. In the next section we show numerical results for the

330: polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ of the horizontal arrows as the

331: parameters $a$ and $b$ are varied.

332: 

333: Making use of the directed-loop algorithm described in the

334: previous section for simulation of the model with the DWBC one

335: should treat vertices belonging to the boundary and the bulk

336: vertices differently. In the bulk one finds by setting $d=W_4=0$

337: and $c=1$ in Eqs.~(\ref{rules}), that bounces are only necessary

338: when $a+b < 1$ or $|a-b| > 1$. For the boundary vertices the loop

339: is not allowed to exit on the boundary edges, because the arrows

340: on these edges are fixed by the boundary conditions. This leads to

341: more restricted equation sets (many $W$'s  are equal to zero) for

342: the boundary vertices and generally requires the inclusion of

343: bounce processes.

344: 

345: Another important point should be mentioned is that the DWBC do

346: not violate the ergodicity of the algorithm even though loops

347: which wind around the boundaries are excluded. These winding loops

348: are needed in order to change the net polarization in the $x$- or

349: $y$-direction. However, one can verify that the boundary

350: conditions restricts the net polarization in both these direction

351: to be zero for any configuration, so winding loops are not

352: necessary to sample the full configuration space allowed by the

353: boundary conditions.

354: 

355: \section{Results}

356: 

357: In this section we present the results of the simulations for the

358: polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ in the disordered, antiferroelectric

359: and ferroelectric phases.

360: 

361: (i) Disordered phase: $-1<\Delta<1.$ First consider the particular

362: case $\Delta=0$ (dotted quartercircle in Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}).

363: An exact expression for $\chi_N(x,y)$ in this case was obtained by

364: Kapitonov and Pronko~\cite{KP-04} recently. To check our algorithm

365: we have compared results for the polarization at the point

366: $a=b=1/\sqrt{2}$ with the exact results of Ref.~\cite{KP-04}. The

367: comparison can be seen in Fig.~\ref{check},

368: \begin{figure}

369: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{fig6.eps}

370: \caption{Polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ as a function of $x$ for

371: different values of $y$. Vertex weights $a=b=1/\sqrt2.$ Results

372: for two different system sizes are shown: $N=32$ (upper panel) and

373: $N=64$ (lower panel). The filled symbols are Monte Carlo results,

374: while the crosses are exact results gotten from Ref.~\cite{KP-04}.

375: The dotted lines are guides to the eye.} \label{check}

376: \end{figure}

377: where the polarization is shown as a function of $x$ for different

378: values of $y$ and system sizes, $N$. One can clearly see that the

379: boundary values of the polarization, $\pm 1,$ extends a finite

380: distance into the bulk and this distance depends on $y.$ The areas

381: where the polarization stays at its boundary values are termed

382: ``frozen'' regions. Going further into the bulk, there is a

383: transition to a ``disordered'' region, where apart from small

384: wiggles due to the finite system size, the polarization changes

385: smoothly. It is interesting to note that there never is any

386: extended regime where the polarization is zero, as is the case for

387: PBC. The transition between the ``frozen'' and ``disordered''

388: regions gets sharper as the system size is increased, as can be

389: seen by comparing the two panels in Fig.~\ref{check}.

390: 

391: It is convenient to visualize the behavior of the polarization

392: using greyscale plots, where greyvalues are assigned to values of

393: $\chi_N(x,y)$ and each point $(x,y)$ corresponds to a location of

394: the midpoint of a horizontal edge following the layout described

395: in Fig.~\ref{DWBC}. For $a=b=1/\sqrt{2}$ such a plot is shown in

396: Fig.~\ref{F:disordered}(a).

397: \begin{figure}

398: \begin{center}

399: \mbox{

400: % a/c=0.707 b/c=0.707

401: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig7a.eps}

402: % a/c=1 b/c=1

403: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig7b.eps}

404: %the scalebar

405: } \hskip2cm (a) \hskip4cm (b)

406: \mbox{

407: % a/c=3 b/c=3

408: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig7c.eps}

409: % a/c=100, b/c=100 32x32 lattice

410: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig7d.eps}

411: } \hskip2cm (c) \hskip4cm (d)

412: \includegraphics[clip,width=6cm]{fig7greyscale.eps}

413: \caption{Greyscale plot of the polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ for

414: $N=64$ in the disordered phase. Vertex weights are equal, $a=b,$

415: and run through the values $1/\sqrt{2},$ $1,$ $3,$ $100$ for

416: figures (a)--(d), respectively. The corresponding values of

417: $\Delta$ are $0,$ $1/2,$ $17/18,$ $1-5\cdot

418: 10^{-5}.$\label{F:disordered}}

419: \end{center}

420: \end{figure}

421: The four ``frozen'' corners are clearly apparent. In these

422: regions, the vertices are all of the same type, and are, from

423: upper left to bottom right, $a_1$, $b_1$, $b_2$, $a_2$,

424: respectively. To measure the area of the ``frozen'' regions, we

425: define a threshold value $\epsilon = 0.08$, such that points

426: $(x,y)$ where $|\chi_N(x,y)| > 1-\epsilon$ are judged to be in a

427: ``frozen'' region. Applying this we find that each ``frozen''

428: corner is 4.6\% of the total area. This value changes relatively

429: little changing the value of $\epsilon$.

430: %($4.0$ if $\epsilon=0.02$, $4.3\%$ if $\epsilon=0.04$ $5.2\%$ if $\epsilon=0.16$ )

431: 

432: Going away from the $\Delta=0$ curve, let us follow along the

433: diagonal, $a=b,$ towards $\Delta=\infty$ first,

434: Fig.~\ref{F:disordered}. As the values of the vertex weights $a$

435: and $b$ increase, the area of the ``frozen'' regions decreases. We

436: find that with $\epsilon=0.08$ each frozen corner in $(b)$ is

437: $4.0\%$ of the total area, and $2.8\%$ in (c). For very large

438: values of $a=b$, the polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ increases linearly

439: from $-1$ to $1$ as $(x-1)/N$ goes from $0$ to $1$, independent of

440: $y$, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{F:disordered} (d). This is

441: consistent with what is expected from an ensemble of

442: configurations with the smallest possible number of $c$-type

443: vertices: $N!$ configurations each with a single $c$-type vertex

444: on every row and column.

445: \begin{figure}

446: \begin{center}

447: \mbox{

448: %on the quartercircle a/c=0.25, b/c = 0.965926 64x64 :

449: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig8a.eps}

450: % a/c=0.25, b/c=1.20 64x64

451: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig8b.eps}

452: } \hskip2cm (a) \hskip4cm (b)

453: 

454: %the scalebar

455: \includegraphics[clip,width=6cm]{fig8greyscale.eps}

456: \end{center}

457: \caption{Greyscale plot of the polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ for

458: $N=64.$ The weight $a=1/4,$ while the weight $b$ is chosen to be

459: $b=\sqrt{15/16}$ ($\Delta=0,$ disordered phase) in figure (a) and

460: $b=5/4$ ($\Delta=1,$ the boundary between disordered and

461: ferroelectric phases) in figure (b). \label{Fig:disordered2} }

462: \end{figure}

463: 

464: Consider now $a \neq b.$ Because of the symmetry of the phase

465: diagram, Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}, one can choose $b>a$ without loss

466: of generality. The weights of the vertices in the four ``frozen''

467: corners are no longer equal, and the ``disordered'' region

468: distorts into an oblong shape oriented along the diagonal with

469: large corners of $b_2$ and $b_1$ vertices, see

470: Fig.~\ref{Fig:disordered2}. The simulations for $a=1/4$ and

471: $b=\sqrt{15/16}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:disordered2}(a). The

472: width of the oblong region shrinks as $b$ increases keeping $a$

473: fixed, $a=1/4$, and becomes very thin at the boundary to the

474: ferroelectric region, as can be seen in

475: Fig.~\ref{Fig:disordered2}(b). Along this boundary, $b=a+1$, the

476: width of the oblong region expands as $a$ increases with $N$ being

477: constant.

478: 

479: (ii) Antiferroelectric phase: $\Delta<-1.$ The simulations in the

480: AF phase are less efficient than in the disordered phase. This is

481: partly due to the presence of the bounce processes also for bulk

482: vertices, but another feature which makes the simulations

483: difficult in this phase is the degeneracy of the two types of AF

484: orders. In the AF phase it becomes energetically favorable to have

485: a maximum possible amount of $c$-type vertices, which is achieved

486: by placing $c$-type vertices in a diamond placed in the center of

487: the lattice. For an even $N$ this diamond can be placed in two

488: equivalent places differing only by one lattice spacing, as shown

489: in Fig.~\ref{Fig:af}.

490: \begin{figure}

491: \begin{center}

492: %\includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{afeven.eps}

493: \mbox{

494: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig9_1.eps}

495: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig9_2.eps}

496: }

497: \end{center}

498: \caption{The two configurations having maximum number of the

499: $c$-type vertices. These vertices are marked by filled circles.

500: The size of the lattice is $4\times 4.$ \label{Fig:af}}

501: \end{figure}

502: The Monte Carlo algorithm is however slow in tunnelling between

503: these configurations, and this sets a limit to its performance.

504: For odd $N$ there is no such a degeneracy and the simulations are

505: more efficient. Greyscale plots of the polarization for $a=b=1/2$

506: and $a=b=3/8$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:afcase}.

507: \begin{figure}

508: \begin{center}

509: \mbox{

510: % a/c=0.5, b/c=0.5

511: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig10a.eps}

512: % a/c=0.375, b/c=0.375

513: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig10b.eps}

514: } \hskip2cm (a) \hskip4cm (b)

515: 

516: \mbox{

517: % a/c=0.5, b/c=0.5

518: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig10c.eps}

519: % a/c=0.375, b/c=0.375

520: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig10d.eps}

521: } \hskip2cm (c) \hskip4cm (d)

522: 

523: \includegraphics[clip,width=6cm]{fig10greyscale.eps}

524: \caption{Greyscale plot of the polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ for two

525: different system sizes: $N=32$ in figures (a) and (b) and $N=33$

526: in figures (c) and (d). Vertex weights are equal, $a=b,$ and take

527: the value $1/2$ ($\Delta=-1,$ the boundary between disordered and

528: AF phases) for figures (a) and (c), and the value $3/8$

529: ($\Delta=-23/9,$ AF phase) for figures (b) and (d).

530: \label{Fig:afcase} }

531: \end{center}

532: \end{figure}

533: We have plotted results for both even and odd $N.$

534: 

535: One can see that the ``disordered'' region have a diamond-like

536: shape, which is consistent with the domination of the $c$-type

537: vertices in the AF phase. As $a=b$ decreases $(\Delta \to

538: -\infty)$, the shape of the ``disordered'' region should converge

539: to the one shown in Fig.~\ref{Fig:af}, that is, the boundaries of

540: the ``disordered'' region should become more and more straight.

541: But, this convergence appears to be rather slow and it

542: is not easy to see it from Fig.~\ref{Fig:afcase}. What one can

543: clearly see from Fig.~\ref{Fig:afcase} is the difference between

544: odd and even $N.$ For odd $N$ AF oscillations are clearly visible

545: in the center of Figs.~\ref{Fig:afcase}(c) and (d), while they are

546: much weaker for even $N$, Figs.~\ref{Fig:afcase}(a) and (b),

547: reflecting the degeneracy mentioned above. These difference

548: between even and odd $N$ can also be clearly seen from

549: Fig.~\ref{Fig:evenoddosc}. For odd $N$ AF oscillations are weaker

550: at $a=b=1/2$ than at $a=b=3/8$.

551: 

552: For $a \neq b$ greyscale plots are shown in Fig.~\ref{something}.

553: \begin{figure}

554: \begin{center}

555: \mbox{

556: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig11a.eps}

557: \includegraphics[clip,width=4cm]{fig11b.eps}

558: } \hskip2cm (a) \hskip4cm (b)

559: \includegraphics[clip,width=6cm]{fig11greyscale.eps}

560: \end{center}

561: \caption{Greyscale plot of the polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ for

562: $N=32.$ The weight $a=1/4$ while the weight $b$ is chosen to be

563: $b=1/2$ ($\Delta=-11/4,$ AF phase) in figure (a) and $b=3/4$

564: ($\Delta=-1,$ the boundary between disordered and AF phases) in

565: figure (b). \label{something}}

566: \end{figure}

567: Here AF oscillations in the middle of the plot are visible for

568: $a=1/4$ and $b=1/2$, Fig.~\ref{something}(a), while they have

569: almost vanished at the boundary between the AF and disordered

570: phases, Fig.~\ref{something}(b).

571: 

572: (iii) Ferroelectric phase: $\Delta>1.$ The behavior of the

573: polarization in this phase is essentially the same as shown in

574: Fig.~\ref{Fig:disordered2}. Vertices of type $b$ dominate

575: completely in the region $\mathrm{II}$ of the phase plane

576: Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}, while in the region $\mathrm I$ of the

577: phase plane the dominant vertices are those of type $a.$ If one

578: goes along the phase boundary, $b=a+1,$ towards $a=\infty,$ the

579: widths of the ``disordered'' region is increased, as we have

580: mentioned in the end of the part (i) of this Section.

581: 

582: The exact expression is known~\cite{BPZ-02} for the polarization

583: along the boundary, $\chi_N(x,1).$ Comparing our Monte Carlo data

584: to this expression we find that in no cases is the absolute

585: difference bigger than $0.016,$ which is comparable to the

586: statistical errors of our simulations.

587: 

588: \section{Discussion}

589: 

590: We have considered the phase diagram of the model for the given

591: $N.$ Now, discuss the following problem: what happens with

592: $\chi_N(x,y)$ in the thermodynamic limit, $N\to\infty?$ It is

593: natural to expect that differences in the behavior of the

594: polarization in the different parts of the phase plane,

595: Fig~\ref{Fig:diagram}, become more pronounced as $N\to\infty.$ As

596: one can see in Fig.~\ref{check}, the wiggles in the ``disordered''

597: region decrease with $N$ increasing, and this is, indeed, the case

598: for all the points ($a,b$) lying in the disordered phase

599: ($-1<\Delta<1,$ region $\mathrm{III}$ of the phase plane,

600: Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}) and checked in our simulations. We expect

601: that these wiggles, coming from the antiferroelectrically ordered

602: configurations, should vanish completely in the thermodynamic

603: limit for this phase. The next conjecture we want to make is on

604: the behavior of the polarization along the boundary,

605: $\chi_N(x,1).$ It is known that for $\Delta=0,$ as well as at the

606: point $a=b=1,$ the boundary polarization becomes the Heaviside

607: step function in the thermodynamic limit~\cite{BPZ-02,Z-96}. We

608: conjecture that this is the case for the whole disordered phase;

609: the position of the discontinuity will depend on the ratio between

610: $a$ and $b.$ We present Fig.~\ref{Fig:boundarypol} to support

611: this conjecture.

612: \begin{figure}

613: \begin{center}

614: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{fig12.eps}

615: \end{center}

616: \caption{Boundary polarization $\chi_N(x,1)$ is shown for three

617: system sizes, $N=16$, $32$, and $64$. Vertex weights $a=1/4$ and

618: $b=3/4$ ($\Delta=-1,$ the boundary between disordered and AF

619: phases). Note the steepening of the curve as $N$ increases.}

620: \label{Fig:boundarypol}

621: \end{figure}

622: 

623: Furthermore, note that for $a=b=1/\sqrt2$ there is a mapping (see,

624: {\it e.g.}, Ref.~\cite{ZJ-00}) of the six-vertex model with the

625: DWBC onto the so-called model of domino tilings of the Aztec

626: diamond. The thermodynamic behavior of the latter model was

627: investigated in Refs.~\cite{JPS-98}. It shows the same features as

628: in Fig.~\ref{F:disordered}(a): the tilings are ordered (frozen) in

629: the corners of the diamond, while going inside one falls into the

630: ``disordered'' region. All these features were named the ``Arctic

631: Circle Theorem'', since the shape of the boundary between the

632: ``frozen'' and ``disordered'' regions is circular. The transition

633: between ``frozen'' and ``disordered'' regions is step-like, with

634: the height of the step function depending on the coordinates $x$

635: and $y.$

636: 

637: We expect the analogue of the Arctic Circle Theorem to take place

638: for the whole disordered phase, $-1<\Delta<1$: there should be the

639: ``frozen'' regions, ``disordered'' region, and a sharp transition

640: between them. We expect also that the profile of the boundary

641: between the ``frozen'' and ``disordered'' regions is circular for

642: $a=b$, even though there is no obvious symmetry protecting this

643: statement. Note that the very ``smeared'' profile in

644: Fig.~\ref{F:disordered}(d) does not contradict our hypotheses

645: because $N=64$ is relatively small compared to the values of the

646: vertex weights $a$ and $b,$ and is thus far from the thermodynamic

647: limit for this point of the phase diagram.

648: 

649: For the ferroelectric phase, $\Delta>1,$ the greyscale plot

650: Fig.~\ref{Fig:disordered2}(b) together with the scans shown in

651: Fig.~\ref{Fig:ferroprofile} leads to the natural conjecture: in

652: the whole region $\mathrm{II}$ of the phase plane,

653: Fig.~\ref{Fig:diagram}, a sharp discontinuity from a ``frozen''

654: domain with $b_1$ vertices to the one with $b_2$-vertices takes

655: place in the thermodynamical limit. In the region $\mathrm{I}$ the

656: behavior is essentially the same, one should simply use $a$-type

657: vertices instead of the $b$-type.

658: \begin{figure}

659: \begin{center}

660: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{fig13.eps}

661: \end{center}

662: \caption{Polarization $\chi_N(x,y=N/2+1)$ is shown for three

663: system sizes, $N=16,$ $32,$ and $64.$ Vertex weights $a=1/4$ and

664: $b=5/4$ ($\Delta=1,$ the boundary between disordered and

665: ferroelectric phases). Note the steepening of the curve as $N$

666: increases. \label{Fig:ferroprofile}}

667: \end{figure}

668: 

669: To this end, consider the antiferroelectric phase, $\Delta<-1$. We

670: expect the step-like behavior of the boundary polarization,

671: $\chi_N(x,1)$ in this phase in the thermodynamic limit, as well as

672: the existence of the ``frozen'' regions in the corners. Our

673: statements on the behavior of the polarization deep inside the

674: lattice are more speculative. For $a=b$ and even $N$ the height of

675: the AF oscillations decreases, while for odd $N$ these

676: oscillations seem to be non-vanishing in the large $N$ limit, see

677: Fig.~\ref{Fig:evenoddosc}.

678: \begin{figure}

679: \begin{center}

680: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{fig14.eps}

681: \end{center}

682: \caption{Polarization $\chi_N(x,y)$ along lines of constant $y$,

683: where $y=N/2+1$, $y=(N+1)/2$) for even and odd $N$ respectively,

684:  is shown for $N=8,$ $16,$

685: and $32$ (upper panel) and $N=9,$ $17,$ and $33$ (lower panel).

686: Vertex weights $a=b=3/8$ ($\Delta=-29/9,$ AF phase).

687: \label{Fig:evenoddosc}}

688: \end{figure}

689: Our belief is that there is a finite region with AF order for odd

690: $N,$ as $N\to\infty,$ while for even $N$ the polarization exhibits

691: no such an order.

692: 

693: Finally, we would like to stress that the directed-loop algorithm

694: can also be applied to study the six-vertex model with any

695: boundary conditions, and the higher-vertex models. These could

696: help in solving the problems for which the analytical methods are

697: difficult to apply. For example, the six-vertex model with any

698: boundary conditions can be considered as a model for a description

699: of interface roughening of a crystal surface \cite{Beij-77}. An

700: important point in studies Refs.~\cite{Beij-77} is the existence

701: of exact analytical results for the six-vertex model with

702: PBC~\cite{Lieb,Baxter-82}. Therefore, numerical data referring

703: to other boundary conditions than PBC could give

704: a new insight for these studies.

705: 

706: \begin{acknowledgments}

707: We thank V.V.~Cheianov and A.G.~Pronko for useful discussions and

708: the authors of the work \cite{KP-04} for providing us with their data.

709: M.B. Zvonarev's work was supported by the Danish Technical

710: Research Council via the Framework Programme on Superconductivity.

711: Monte Carlo calculations were in part carried out using NorduGrid,

712: a Nordic facility for Wide Area Computing and Data Handling.

713: \end{acknowledgments}

714: 

715: 

716: \begin{thebibliography}{00}

717: \bibitem{Lieb} E.H.~Lieb, Phys. Rev. {\bf 162}, 162 (1967);

718: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 18}, 1046 (1967); {\bf 19}, 108 (1967);

719: B.~Sutherland, {\it ibid.} {\bf 19}, 103 (1967).

720: \bibitem{Baxter-82} R.J.~Baxter, {\it Exactly Solved Models in Statistical

721: Mechanics} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1982).

722: \bibitem{KBI-93} V.E.~Korepin, N.M.~Bogoliubov, and A.G.~Izergin,

723: {\it Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions}

724: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993).

725: \bibitem{SS} O.F.~Sylju{\aa}sen and A.W.~Sandvik,

726: Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 66}, 046701 (2002).

727: \bibitem{Rahman} A.~Rahman and F.H.~Stillinger,

728: J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 57}, 4009 (1972).

729: \bibitem{BN} G.T.~Barkema and M.E.J.~Newman,

730: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57}, 1155 (1998).

731: \bibitem{Olav} O.F.~Sylju{\aa}sen,

732: Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 67}, 046701 (2003).

733: \bibitem{Evertz} H.G.~Evertz, G.~Lana and M.~Marcu,

734: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 70}, 875 (1993).

735: \bibitem{Kawashima} N. Kawashima,

736: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 82}, 131 (1996).

737: \bibitem{Alet} F.Alet and E.S.~S{\o}rensen, Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 68}, 026702 (2003).

738: \bibitem{K-82} V.E.~Korepin,

739: Commun. Math. Phys. {\bf 86}, 391 (1982).

740: \bibitem{BPZ-02} N.M.~Bogoliubov, A.G.~Pronko, and M.B.~Zvonarev,

741: J. Phys. A {\bf 35}, 5525 (2002).

742: \bibitem{BKZ-02} N.M.~Bogoliubov, A.V.~Kitaev, and M.B.~Zvonarev,

743: Phys. Rev. E, {\bf 65}, 026126 (2002).

744: \bibitem{ZJ-00} P.~Zinn-Justin,

745: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 62}, 3411 (2000).

746: \bibitem{KP-04} V.S.~Kapitonov and A.G.~Pronko, {\it private

747: communication}.

748: \bibitem{Z-96} D.~Zeilberger,

749: NY J. Math. {\bf2}, 59 (1996).

750: \bibitem{JPS-98} W.~Jockusch, J.~Propp, and P.~Shor, e-print

751: math.CO/9801068; H.~Cohn, N.~Elkies, and J.~Propp, Duke. Math. J.

752: {\bf 85}, 117 (1996).

753: \bibitem{Beij-77} H.~van Beijeren, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 38}, 993

754: (1977); E.~Carlon, G.~Mazzeo, and H.~van Beijeren, Phys. Rev. B

755: {\bf 55}, 757 (1997).

756: \end{thebibliography}

757: 

758: \end{document}

759: