The penalty method for random walks with uncertain energies

Journal of Chemical Physics

Volumn 110, Issue 20, 1999, Pages 9812-9820

  Ceperley, D M ^a   Dewing, M ^a  

^a United States of America   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042958264     PISSN: 00219606     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.478034     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
2. D. Ferguson, J. Siepmann, and D. Truhlar, Adv. Chem. Phys. 105, 1 (1998).
3. D. M. Ceperley, Rev. Mod. Phys. 67, 279 (1995).
4. D. M. Ceperley, G. V. Chester, and M. H. Kalos, Phys. Rev. B 16, 3081 (1977).
5. J. M. Hammersley and D. C. Handscomb, Monte Carlo Methods (Chapman and Hall, London, 1964).
6. P. A. Whitlock and M. H. Kalos, Monte Carlo Methods (Wiley, New York, 1986).
7. R. Car and M. Parrinello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 2471 (1985).
8. R. O. Weht, J. Kohanoff, D. A. Estrin, and C. Chakravarty, J. Chem. Phys. 108, 8848 (1998).
9. J. C. Grossman, L. Mitas, and K. Raghavachari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3870 (1995).
10. The nuclei do not have to be classical; one can treat quantum effects with imaginary time path integrals. For simplicity, we do not discuss that case.
11. J. D. Doll and D. L. Freeman, Chem. Phys. Lett. 227, 436 (1994).
12. M. P. Allen and D. J. Tildesley, Computer Simulation of Liquids (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987).
13. V. Natoli and D. M. Ceperley, J. Comput. Phys. 117, 171 (1995).
14. L. Greengard and V. Rokhlin, J. Comput. Phys. 60, 187 (1987).
15. A. D. Kennedy and K. Kuti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2473 (1985).
16. G. Bhanot and A. D. Kennedy, Phys. Lett. 157B, 70 (1985).
17. If the sampling probability were also to be only estimated, in particular, if the logarithm of T was normally distributed, that would simply add to σ and the discussion carries through.
18. W. W. Wood, and J. D. Jacobson, in Proceedings of the Western Joint Computer Conference, 1959, p. 261 (unpublished).
19. A. A. Barker, Aust. J. Phys. 18, 119 (1965).
20. A. Mira, Ph.D. thesis, University of Minnesota, 1998; [http:// www.stat.umn.edu/ mira]
21. P. H. Peskun, Biometrika 60, 607 (1973).
22. However, simply requiring that A(Δ) = 1 for Δ ≪ - σ does not uniquely specify a(δ). Numerically we have found other solutions with these boundary conditions.
23. A possible reason would be that one does not have to compute an exponential or random number with such an acceptance formula.
24. L. Liu, K. F. Liu, and J. Sloan, Lattice 98 Conference Proceedings, 1998 (xxx.lanl.gov hep-lat/9809168).