1: \documentclass[10pt,twocolumn,amsmath]{article}
2:
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{bm}
5: \usepackage{latex8}
6: \usepackage{times}
7:
8: \begin{document}
9:
10: \title{Simulations of Disordered Bosons on Hyper-Cubic Lattices}
11:
12: \author{Peter Hitchcock and Erik S. S\o rensen\\
13: Department of Physics and Astronomy, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M1 Canada\\
14: hitchpa@mcmaster.ca, sorensen@mcmaster.ca}
15:
16: \date{\today}
17:
18: \maketitle
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We address computational issues relevant to the study of disordered quantum mechanical
22: systems at very low temperatures. As an example we consider the disordered Bose-Hubbard
23: model in three dimensions directly at the Bose-glass to superfluid phase transition. The universal
24: aspects of the critical behaviour are captured by a (3~+~1)~dimensional link-current model for which
25: an efficient `worm' algorithm is known. We present a calculation of the distribution of the
26: superfluid stiffness over the disorder realizations, outline a number of important considerations
27: for performing such estimates, and suggest a modification of the link-current Hamiltonian
28: that improves the numerical efficiency of the averaging procedure without changing the universal
29: properties of the model.
30: \end{abstract}
31:
32: \Section{Introduction}
33: The Bose-Hubbard model was first studied in the context of liquid helium in a disordered
34: medium~\cite{fisher:1989:prb}. Interest in the model has recently grown with the progress achieved in trapping
35: ultra-cold atomic gases in optical lattice potentials. The model describes the competition between
36: tunneling and on-site interactions in a lattice of bosons. It displays several zero-temperature
37: quantum phases that are now clearly attainable in the laboratory~\cite{greiner:2002a:nature}.
38: Notably, a localized Mott insulating (MI) phase exists when the tunneling between sites is small,
39: while at higher tunneling the system becomes a superfluid (SF). In the presence of disorder another
40: localized phase, the Bose-glass (BG), exists between the Mott insulator and the superfluid. In the
41: present study we focus on the Bose-glass to superfluid transition since it exists only at finite
42: disorder and thus provides a clear example of a quantum phase transition for which disorder is
43: relevant. Although this model has been extensively studied in one- and two-dimensions, the nature of
44: the phase transition in three and higher dimensions has received relatively little attention.
45:
46: Scaling theories based on generalized Josephson relations and the finite compressibility of the
47: superfluid and Bose-glass phases indicate that the dynamic correlation exponent $z$ is equal to the
48: number of spatial dimensions~\cite{fisher:1989:prb}. This feature, which is supported by analytical
49: and numerical arguments~\cite{herbut:1998:prb,herbut:2001:prl,wallin:1994:prb} in low dimensions
50: suggests that the model has an unusual approach to mean-field behaviour---and may not have an upper
51: critical dimension at all---invalidating standard renormalization group approaches. Numerical work
52: above two dimensions is difficult due to the large volumes of the systems, and the
53: algorithmic slow down of the Monte Carlo averaging procedure.
54:
55: Of particular interest are the distributions of thermodynamic observables over the disorder. They
56: are typically far from Gaussian in nature, rendering standard estimates of statistical error
57: invalid for smaller sample sizes and necessitating calculations for a large number of disorder
58: configurations. Moreover, the behaviour of these distributions for increasing lattice size is
59: directly relevant to the break-down of self-averaging~\cite{aharony:1998:prl}, the quantum Harris
60: Criterion~\cite{chayes:1986:prl,pazmandi:1997:prl}, and the effect of disorder on quantum critical
61: phenomena~\cite{sknepnek:2004:prb}. More efficient ways of performing disorder averages has also
62: been proposed~\cite{bernadet:2000:prl}. These latter developments are however too computationally demanding for
63: the present model.
64:
65: The universal properties of the $d$-dimensional Bose-Hubbard model are captured by a
66: ($d$~+~1)-dimensional classical link-current representation for which an efficient worm-like Monte
67: Carlo algorithm exists. While the worm algorithm represents a drastic improvement over earlier,
68: Metropolis-like algorithms, the computational demands increase dramatically in higher dimensions,
69: limiting the precision of the numerical analysis. Since the system is disordered, the calculations
70: involve performing many Monte Carlo simulations of the system at the same parameters with different
71: realizations of the disorder. Hence, the calculations are very well suited for parallelization and
72: a linear speed up can be achieved with a relatively modest programming effort. Without such a linear
73: speed up the calculations we report on would have been almost impossible. Parallelization is
74: performed straightforwardly with MPI: each processor performs Monte Carlo simulations serially for
75: a given disorder realization, then the results are collected and written to disk. As many as several
76: thousand disorder realizations need to be performed at each point in parameter space, and each
77: individual Monte Carlo simulation can take up to three hours, depending on the
78: system size and the parameters of the model. The length of time required to perform one simulation
79: for a given disorder realization dictates how large a system we can reasonably study and so it is
80: essential to consider carefully how much computational effort to invest in each such simulation.
81:
82: Numerical study of this transition in three dimensions presented a number of difficulties in
83: calculating the disorder distributions and their averages. The main results of the study will be
84: presented elsewhere~\cite{hitchcock:2006:prb}, but we outline here the procedure that was used to
85: estimate these distributions, and suggest a modification to the link-current Hamiltonian which
86: improves the efficiency of these numerical estimates. The remainder of the introduction discusses
87: the link-current Hamiltonian and the finite-size scaling theory on which our numerical approach
88: relies. Section~\ref{sec:eq} describes how we ensure that the simulation of each disorder
89: realization has been properly equilibrated. Section~\ref{sec:ar} describes a modification of the
90: link-current model that improves the numerical efficiency of each simulation without affecting the
91: universal details. We then conclude with some remarks about the general applicability of these
92: considerations.
93:
94: \SubSection{Model and Scaling Theory}
95: The Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian, including an on-site disorder in the chemical
96: potential is~\cite{fisher:1989:prb}
97: \begin{equation}
98: H_{\mathrm{BH}} = \sum_{{\bf r}}\Big[\frac{U}{2}\hat{n}_{{\bf r}}(\hat{n}_{{\bf r}} - 1) - \mu_{{\bf r}}\hat{n}_{{\bf r}}\Big] -
99: \frac{t}{2}\sum_{\langle {\bf r}, {\bf r}'\rangle}(\bm{\hat{\Phi}^\dagger_r\hat{\Phi}_{r'}} + \mathrm{H.c.}). %\bm{\hat{\Phi}_{r'}^\dagger\hat{\Phi}_r}).
100: \end{equation}
101: The second quantized boson operators describe a tunneling process coupled by $t$ and an on-site,
102: repulsive interaction $U$, on a hyper-cubic lattice. The disordered chemical potential $\mu_{\bf r}$
103: is distributed uniformly on $[\mu - \Delta, \mu + \Delta]$ so that $\Delta$ controls the strength of the
104: disorder. At finite disorder, the system undergoes a phase transition from a Bose-glass insulating
105: phase (low $t$, high $U$) to a superfluid phase (high $t$, low $U$). The model can be transformed via the
106: quantum rotor model to the ($d$~+~1)~link-current model~\cite{wallin:1994:prb}. The link-current
107: Hamiltonian is given by
108: \begin{equation}
109: \label{eq:Hlc}
110: H = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{({\bf r}, \tau)}\Big[\frac{1}{2}\bm{J}^2_{({\bf r}, \tau)} - \mu_{{\bf r}}J^\tau_{({\bf r}, \tau)}\Big].
111: \end{equation}
112: The integer currents ${\bf J}_{({\bf r}, \tau)}$ are situated on the bonds of the lattice and obey a
113: divergenceless constraint
114: \begin{equation}
115: \sum_{\nu = x, y, z, \tau} J^\nu_{({\bf r}, \tau)} = 0.
116: \end{equation}
117: The resulting loops are interpreted as currents of bosons hopping about on the lattice (specifically
118: they are fluctuations from an average density, so that the currents are permitted to be negative). The
119: coupling $K$ controls the ratio between $t$ and $U$: at low $K$ the interaction $U$ dominates and the system
120: is insulating, while at high $K$ the tunneling dominates and the system condenses into a superfluid.
121:
122: The two phases can be distinguished by the superfluid stiffness, $\rho$, which is proportional to the
123: superfluid density. The stiffness is defined as the response of the free energy to a twist in the
124: boundary conditions and is indicative of global phase coherence. In the link-current model, the
125: stiffness is proportional to the square of the winding number in the spatial dimensions:
126: \begin{equation}
127: \label{eq:stiffness}
128: \rho = \frac{1}{L^{d - 2}L_\tau}\big[\langle n_{x}^2 \rangle\big]_{av}.
129: \end{equation}
130: The angle brackets $\langle\cdot\rangle$ denote a thermal average, while the square brackets
131: $[\cdot ]_{av}$ denote an average over disorder realizations. The winding numbers ($n_{\gamma} =
132: L_\gamma^{-1}\sum_{{\bf r}, \tau}J^{\gamma}_{{\bf r}, \tau}$ for $\gamma = x, y, z, \tau$) of the
133: lattice in each direction are just the number of current loops that have wound all the way about the
134: periodic lattice. They are always integers.
135:
136: Dynamics and statics are both essential to the critical behaviour of quantum phase transitions. They are
137: characterized by independent spatial and temporal correlation lengths ($\xi$ and $\xi_\tau$) which
138: define the dynamic critical exponent $z$:
139: \begin{equation}
140: \xi_\tau \sim \xi^z \sim (\delta^{-\nu})^z,\qquad\delta = \frac{K - K_c}{K_c}.
141: \end{equation}
142: Here $\nu$ is the correlation length exponent. This implies that quantities at the critical point
143: scale as a function of two arguments. The superfluid stiffness (which diverges as $\rho \sim \xi^{d
144: + z - 2}$ at $K_c$) thus scales as
145: \begin{equation}
146: \label{eq:pscale}
147: \rho = \frac{1}{L^{d + z - 2}}\bar{\rho}(L^{1/\nu}\delta, L_\tau/L^z).
148: \end{equation}
149: If we hold the second argument constant, the critical point can be located by
150: plotting curves of $\rho L^{d + z - 2}$ for various linear system sizes $L$.
151: Since $\delta = 0$ at $K_c$,
152: $K_c$ will be the value of $K$ at
153: which these curves intersect. This unfortunately requires that we guess at the value of $z$ before
154: we begin. In principle, we are free to set the aspect ratio
155: \begin{equation}
156: \alpha = L_\tau/L^z,
157: \end{equation}
158: as we see fit
159: to find the critical point; in practice however, as we discuss below, the numerics work better near
160: an optimal aspect ratio where $(\xi/L)^z\simeq\xi_\tau/L_\tau$ implying $\alpha = {\cal O}(1)$.
161:
162: \Section{\label{sec:eq}Equilibration}
163: When considering disordered systems, the average $[\langle\cdot\rangle]_{av}$ of an arbitrary
164: observable (denoted by $\cdot$) such as the stiffness $\rho$ must be calculated over a whole set of disorder
165: configurations, performing independent Monte Carlo simulations on each particular realization. We
166: must then decide how many Monte Carlo sweeps ($t_n$) to perform on each simulation, and how many
167: disorder realizations ($N_D$) to average these over. There are correspondingly two sources of
168: statistical error~\cite{bhatt:1988:prb}: the error $\delta_T\rho$ in the estimate of the thermal
169: average:
170: \begin{equation}
171: \langle\rho\rangle = \bar{\rho} + \delta_T\rho,
172: \end{equation}
173: and the overall error $\delta[\rho]_{av}$ in the disorder average:
174: \begin{equation}
175: [\langle\rho\rangle]_{av} = [\bar{\rho} + \delta_T\rho]_av = [\bar{\rho}]_{av} + \delta[\rho]_{av}.
176: \end{equation}
177: It is of particular interest to review~\cite{bhatt:1988:prb} how to correctly obtains the disorder average of
178: the square of a thermodynamic observable such as the energy. Such a quantity would be needed
179: for calculating for instance the specific heat, $C_V$. In this case we have for
180: a single disorder realization:
181: \begin{equation}
182: \langle E\rangle = \bar{E} + \delta_T E.
183: \end{equation}
184: If we now want to calculate the disorder average $[\langle E\rangle^2]_{av}$ we encounter a
185: slight problem:
186: \begin{equation}
187: [\langle E\rangle^2]_{av} = [\bar{E}^2]_{av} + [(\delta_T E)^2]_{av} + 2\bar{E}[\delta_T E]_{av}.
188: \end{equation}
189: It is natural to assume that $[\delta_T E]_{av}$ will yield zero when a sufficiently large number
190: of disorder realizations are used. However, $[(\delta_T E)^2]_{av}$ will be {\it non zero} and will
191: yield a {\it systematic} error unless infinitely precise thermal averages can be obtained for each disorder realization.
192: In order to circumvent this problem and correctly calculate such a disorder average,
193: one can
194: run 2 independent simulations, referred to as ``replicas'', of a given disorder realization~\cite{bhatt:1988:prb}.
195: We
196: denote them by $\alpha$ and $\beta$. The above disorder average should then be calculated in the
197: following way:
198: \begin{eqnarray}
199: [\langle E\rangle^2]_{av} &\equiv& [\langle E^\alpha\rangle\langle E^\beta\rangle]_{av} \nonumber\\
200: &=&[\bar{E}^2]_{av} +
201: [\delta_T E^\alpha\delta_TE^\beta]_{av}\nonumber\\
202: & &+\bar{E}[\delta_T E^\alpha]_{av}+\bar{E}[\delta_T E^\beta]_{av}.
203: \end{eqnarray}
204: The term $[\delta_T E^\alpha\delta_TE^\beta]_{av}$ will now also correctly average to zero since the thermal
205: errors from each replica are independent random variables.
206: In our calculations we always run at least two independent replicas of a given disorder realization
207: with the goal of correctly calculating averages as outlined above. For higher powers of thermal averages
208: more replicas are needed. As we shall see below, having several independent runs of a given disorder realization
209: allow also for very convenient and indispensable checks of the equilibration of the calculations.
210:
211:
212: \begin{figure}[t]
213: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{hamming.eps}
214: \caption{ Hamming distances on an 8x8x8x64 lattice at ${\bf K_c = 0.19}$ calculated over a set of
215: 1000 disorder realizations with ${\bf t_0 = 3\times 10^7}$. For the Hamming distances between the
216: two replicas ${\bf \alpha}$ and ${\bf \beta}$, ${\bf t}$ is the total number of Monte Carlo sweeps
217: performed. For the Hamming distances between replica ${\bf \alpha}$ and its configuration
218: ${\bf \alpha_0}$ at ${\bf t_0}$, ${\bf t}$ is the number of sweeps performed {\it after}
219: the initial ${\bf t_0}$ sweeps have been performed. The convergence of the curves indicates
220: ${\bf t_r \approx 3\times 10^5}$.}
221: \label{fig:hamm}
222: \end{figure}
223:
224: It is important to note that even for very large system sizes, the average should be taken over
225: as many disorder realizations as possible. One might assume that for large system sizes a
226: smaller set of disorder realizations would suffice, since the properties of the system will average
227: out spatially. For many disordered systems this assumption is false---self-averaging breaks
228: down~\cite{aharony:1996:prl}. Even in the thermodynamic limit (where in principle one could find
229: any particular finite disorder realization \emph{somewhere} in the infinite system) the width of
230: the distribution of $P(\bar{\rho})$ remains finite. Moreover, such distributions are typically far
231: from Gaussian (they often have a particularly `fat' tail). Error estimates based on Gaussian
232: distributions are thus only valid for very large $N_D$. The best approach is then to spend a minimal
233: amount of computational time on each realization, and then rely on the disorder average to control the
234: statistical errors. As usual, however, each Monte Carlo simulation must be properly equilibrated to
235: ensure that $\langle\rho\rangle$ is unbiased. Since the lattice starts in an artificial (and
236: non-equilibrium) configuration, we throw out the first $t_0$ of the $t_n$ sweeps before sampling the
237: remaining $t_s = t_n - t_0$ configurations. As long as $t_0$ is greater than the relaxation time of
238: the algorithm $t_r$, we sample only equilibrium configurations, and our estimates of the thermal
239: averages will be unbiased. Since we do not want to spend all of our computational efforts
240: equilibrating systems, each disorder realization is typically run for an additional $t_0$ steps once
241: it has reached equilibrium.
242:
243: To confirm that we have chosen $t_0$ greater than $t_r$, we perform each simulation independently on two
244: replicas with different initial configurations. We can then define
245: `Hamming distances'~\cite{wallin:1994:prb} between the two replicas $\alpha$ and $\beta$ after
246: performing $t$ Monte Carlo sweeps on their initial configuration, and between the replica $\alpha$
247: at sweep $t + t_0$ and its configuration $\alpha_0$ at sweep $t_0$ when sampling begins:
248: \begin{displaymath}
249: \nonumber
250: H_{\alpha, \alpha_0}^{\nu = x, \tau}(t) = \frac{1}{L^dL_\tau} \sum_{({\bf r}, \tau)}
251: \big[J^\nu_{\alpha:({\bf r}, \tau)}(t + t_0) - J^\nu_{\alpha:({\bf r}, \tau)}(t_0)\big]^2,
252: \end{displaymath}
253: \begin{equation}
254: \label{eq:hamming}
255: H_{\alpha, \beta}^{\nu = x, \tau}(t) = \frac{1}{L^dL_\tau}\sum_{({\bf r}, \tau)}
256: \big[J^\nu_{\alpha:({\bf r}, \tau)}(t) - J^\nu_{\beta:({\bf r}, \tau)}(t)\big]^2.
257: \end{equation}
258: These measures are then averaged over the disorder realizations. At the beginning of each
259: simulation, the initial configurations of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are quite different. Hence
260: $H_{\alpha, \beta}(t)$ will be large for small $t$, but diminish as the two configurations
261: equilibrate. On the other hand, shortly after $t_0$, the configuration $\alpha$ will not have
262: changed substantially from $\alpha_0$, so $H_{\alpha, \alpha_0}(t)$ will be initially small, but
263: increase as more sweeps are performed. If $t_0$ has in fact been chosen greater than $t_r$, these
264: two measures will converge on the same value in $t_r$ sweeps at which point the
265: configurations of $\alpha$, $\alpha_0$, and $\beta$ will be independently drawn from the same
266: population of equilibrium configurations. Figure~\ref{fig:hamm} shows the two Hamming distances
267: plotted as a function of $t$ at $K_c$, averaged over $N_D = 1000$ disorder realizations. Results are
268: shown for Hamming distances defined in terms of spatial ($x,y,z$) currents (open symbols) and the
269: temporal ($\tau$) current (filled symbols).
270: Both the spatial and temporal Hamming distances converge, indicating that $t_r \approx 3\times 10^5$
271: for an 8x8x8x64 lattice at the critical point.
272:
273: \begin{figure}
274: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{equil.eps}
275: \caption{ Evolution of the distribution of $\bm{\langle\rho L^4\rangle}$ as a function of $\bm{t_s}$ (the
276: number of samples gathered at equilibrium for each disorder realization) for the same sample
277: disorder realizations used in Fig.~\ref{fig:hamm}. The vertical axes are offset for
278: clarity. The peak at $\bm{\langle\rho L^4\rangle = 0}$ persists for $\bm{t_s \gg t_r}$, giving
279: way to a broader peak at a non-zero $\bm{\langle\rho L^4\rangle}$. The distribution continues
280: to change until $\bm{t_s \approx 3\times 10^6}$ upon which the distribution stops evolving.}
281: \label{fig:equil}
282: \end{figure}
283: \begin{figure}
284: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{lowt0.eps}
285: \caption{ Distribution of $\bm{\langle\rho L^4\rangle}$ calculated with different ${\bf t_0}$ but the same
286: $\bf{t_s}$ over two different sets of 1000 disorder realizations. The distribution is unchanged. }
287: \label{fig:lowt0}
288: \end{figure}
289:
290: From these observations it would seem reasonable to generate $t_s = 3\times 10^5$ configurations after equilibration
291: at each disorder realization in order to calculate the disorder average. However, if we look more closely
292: at the distribution $P(\langle\rho\rangle)$ generated by using $t_s = 3\times 10^5$ configurations,
293: we find a large peak in the distribution at $\langle\rho\rangle = 0$ (see the uppermost graph of
294: Fig.~\ref{fig:equil}). For many disorder realizations, the Monte Carlo algorithm {\it never}
295: generates an equilibrium configuration with a non-zero winding number (this can be verified by
296: looking directly at the data set). If we generate more configurations at equilibrium for each
297: disorder realization (that is, we increase $t_s$), the shape of the distribution changes---the peak
298: at $\langle\rho\rangle = 0$ shrinks and a broader one grows at a non-zero value. After one to three
299: million sweeps, the peak at $\langle\rho\rangle = 0$ disappears and the distribution stops evolving.
300: This effect is a result of the discrete nature of the winding number, $n_x$, and the strong
301: correlation between configurations generated by a successive Monte Carlo sweeps. Since the
302: superfluid stiffness is defined in terms of
303: $n_x$, it is difficult to numerically resolve the difference between a superfluid stiffness of zero
304: and a small fractional value. For instance, a disorder realization with $\bar{\rho} L^4 = 0.05$
305: corresponds to an average squared winding number of $\langle\bar{n_x^2}\rangle = \frac{L_\tau}{L^z}\langle\rho
306: L^4\rangle = 1/160$, roughly implying that only one out of every 160 independent configurations has a
307: non-zero winding number. Since the algorithm generates approximately one fully independent configuration every
308: $t_r$ sweeps, at $t_s = 3\times 10^5$ one would expect most runs to find $\langle\rho
309: L^4\rangle = 0$. (Here we assume that $t_r$ is proportional to the autocorrelation time $\tau$.)
310: However, if the average is taken over a further $10^2$ independent configurations, the
311: estimate will converge on the small but finite true average. Resolving the true shape of
312: the distribution thus requires much longer runs at each realization of the disorder. That the
313: lattice is in fact equilibrated at $t_r$ as determined by the convergence of the Hamming distances
314: is supported by the fact one can generate the same distributions independent of $t_0$ (so long as
315: $t_0 > t_r$). Figure~\ref{fig:lowt0} shows the distribution of $\langle\rho L^4\rangle$ calculated
316: over two different sets of 1000 disorder realizations, one with $t_0 = 3\times 10^5$, the other with
317: $t_0 = 3\times 10^7$. In both cases $t_s = 3\times 10^7$ configurations were generated after equilibration
318: for each disorder realization.
319:
320: An immediate conclusion to be drawn from these results is that, if attention is not paid to
321: either the Hamming distances or the convergence of the complete distribution of the thermodynamic
322: observables over the disorder, then one is very likely to be mislead by the results obtained. In
323: particular, it is clear from the results in Figure~\ref{fig:equil} that if $t_s$ or $N_D$ are too
324: small, then $[\langle\cdot\rangle]_{av}$ will be {\it too small} and the error bars will also be
325: misleadingly small. As $t_s$ and $N_D$ are increased, $[\langle\cdot\rangle]_{av}$ will also likely
326: increase due to the tails of the distribution while at the same time the associated error bars might
327: very well remain roughly constant.
328:
329: \Section{\label{sec:ar}Coupling Anisotropy}
330: In the context of the Bose-glass to superfluid transition, one approach to improving the efficiency
331: of the calculation is to increase the numerical value of the stiffness at the critical point. One
332: possible means of achieving this is to increase the aspect ratio $\alpha$ between the spatial and
333: temporal lattice sizes. In a finite system, the correlation length can be no longer than the size
334: of the system; but since the temporal and spatial correlation length are related, a small $\alpha$
335: that truncates $\xi_\tau$ will in turn restrict $\xi$ to be smaller than the spatial extent of the
336: lattice. Since a global current loop depends on correlation across the whole length of the lattice,
337: this will limit the number of winding events and in turn reduce $\rho$. At the critical point, the
338: value of $[\langle\rho L^4\rangle]_{av}$ should increase with $\alpha$ and it seems natural to
339: assume that it will continue to increase at least up until $\xi_\tau/L_\tau\simeq(\xi/L)^z$, where
340: $\alpha = {\cal O}(1)$. Simulations are then best performed at this optimal aspect ratio;
341: unfortunately they prove too large for us to simulate. The problem here is the relatively small
342: probability of generating configurations with non-zero winding number in the spatial direction if a
343: very small $\alpha$ is used. One could then ask if equivalent models can be found with higher
344: winding numbers at $K_c$ for the same aspect ratio. Such models would likely have an optimal
345: $\alpha$ at smaller values than the present one thereby decreasing the numerical overhead. It turns
346: out that for the present model we can exploit the universality of the critical behavior to arrive at
347: equivalent models that indeed have this desired property.
348:
349:
350: \begin{figure}
351: \includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{gamma.eps}
352: \caption{ Crossings of $\bm{[\langle\rho L^4\rangle]_{av}}$ for three values of the anisotropy
353: $\bm{\gamma} = $ 0.3, 1, and 3. The critical point increases as a function of $\bm{\gamma}$, as does the
354: value of $\bm{[\langle\rho L^4\rangle]_{av}}$ at the critical point.}
355: \label{fig:gamma}
356: \end{figure}
357:
358: We now outline how we arrive at these equivalent models. The transformation
359: from the Bose-Hubbard Hamiltonian to the effective link-current Hamiltonian described in
360: Ref.~\cite{wallin:1994:prb} yields, near the end of the procedure, an anisotropic action
361: \begin{eqnarray}
362: Z = \sum_{\bm{J}}\exp \bigg\{ -\sum_{({\bf r},\tau)}
363: \Big[\frac{K_x}{2}\bm{J'}^2_{({\bf r},\tau)} \nonumber\\
364: + \frac{K_{\tau}}{2}{J^{\tau}_{({\bf r},\tau)}}^2 - \Delta \tau \bar{\mu_{{\bf r}}} J^{\tau}_{({\bf r},\tau)} \Big] \bigg\}
365: \end{eqnarray}
366: where $\Delta \tau$ is the width of each time slice, $\bm{J'} = \sum_{\nu = x, y, z}J^2$, and
367: \begin{equation}
368: \label{eq:Kaniso}
369: K_t = U\Delta\tau,\qquad K_x = -2\ln (-t\Delta\tau /2).
370: \end{equation}
371: The simplest approach here is to set $KK_x = KK_\tau = 1$, which yields the isotropic link-current model as
372: stated above with $\mu_{{\bf r}} = \bar{\mu_{{\bf r}}} / U$. There is a freedom here, however: one
373: can instead set $KK_x = 1$ and $KK_\tau = \gamma$, and introduce an anisotropy between the space and
374: time couplings in the link-current model without affecting the universal details:
375: \begin{equation}
376: H = \frac{1}{K}\sum_{({\bf r}, \tau)}\bigg\{\frac{1}{2}\bm{J'}^2_{({\bf r},\tau)}
377: + \gamma \Big[\frac{1}{2}{J^{\tau}_{({\bf r}, \tau)}}^2 - \mu_{{\bf r}}J^\tau_{({\bf r}, \tau)}\Big]\bigg\}.
378: \end{equation}
379:
380: The link-current couplings can be mapped back to the Bose-Hubbard tunneling and on-site disorder
381: using (\ref{eq:Kaniso}):
382: \begin{equation}
383: \frac{U}{t} = 2\gamma\big(K e^{1/2K}\big)^{-1}.
384: \end{equation}
385: If the transition occurs at a particular ratio $U/t$, an increase in $\gamma$ implies then an
386: increase in $K_c$, for $K_c < 1/2$. More importantly, increasing $\gamma$ freezes out the temporal dynamics
387: of the link-current model. Both of these effects should speed up the spatial dynamics of the `worm'
388: algorithm, and since $\rho$ is defined in terms of these winding numbers, by changing $\gamma$ we can tune
389: the value of $\rho L^4$ at the critical point. Figure~\ref{fig:gamma} shows crossings in $\rho L^4$
390: for $\gamma = 0.3$, 1, and 3. As expected, increasing $\gamma$ increases the value of $K_c$ and the
391: magnitude of the stiffness at the crossing, hence improving the sampling efficiency of the algorithm. Note
392: that this has been achieved without changing the aspect ratio, $\alpha$.
393:
394: Due to space constraints we do not show results for the critical exponents at different $\gamma$.
395: However, we have studied them in detail and they are indeed independent of $\gamma$ as one would
396: expect from universality arguments. We note that it would be of considerable interest to study the
397: evolution of the distribution of thermodynamic variable, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:equil} for
398: $\gamma=1$, for different values of $\gamma$. Preliminary results indicates that the width of the
399: distributions vary with $\gamma$, likely increasing monotonically with this parameter. Due to time
400: constraints we leave a detailed investigation for future study.
401:
402: \Section{\label{sec:concl}Conclusions}
403: Numerical studies of disordered systems are notoriously difficult due to the large amount of
404: computational resources required and to the many subtle sources of systematic error. The procedure
405: we have presented to estimate disorder distributions and their averages highlights some of the
406: potential pitfalls. Under-sampling the disorder distribution (setting $N_D$ too low), under-sampling
407: each individual distribution (setting $t_s$ too low), and failing to properly equilibrate each
408: simulation (setting $t_0$ too low) can all lead to erroneous estimates. The two procedures presented
409: above provide confirmation that these pitfalls have been avoided. The convergence of the Hamming
410: distances provides a measure of $t_r$ and confirms that the Monte Carlo simulations are generating
411: equilibrium configurations. The disorder distributions themselves can contain artifacts of the Monte
412: Carlo averaging procedure; they should not demonstrate any dependence on $t_0$ or $t_s$ if these
413: have been set sufficiently large. These procedures can be generalized to other systems.
414:
415: In the context of the Bose-Hubbard model, the discrete nature of the winding number in the
416: link-current representation forces the investment of a large amount of computational resources in
417: simulating each individual disorder realization ($t_s$ must be set much greater than $t_r$).
418: However, by adjusting the anisotropy between the spatial and temporal coupling strengths in the
419: link-current model, we can increase the magnitude of the superfluid stiffness at the critical point.
420: This improves the numerical efficiency of the calculation without affecting the universal details of
421: the critical behaviour. This observation may prove useful for future Monte Carlo studies of the
422: Bose-Hubbard model in the link-current representation.
423:
424: \section*{Acknowledgements}
425: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and by
426: SHARCNET. Computation was carried out on SHARCNET clusters at McMaster University.
427:
428: \bibliographystyle{latex8}
429: \bibliography{bhd3d}
430: \end{document}
431: