Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Sigma method for the microcanonical entropy or density of states

Rasmus A. X. Persson*

  • Department of Chemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Gothenburg, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

  • *rasmusp@chem.gu.se

Phys. Rev. E 87, 054101 – Published 6 May, 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.87.054101

Abstract

We introduce a simple improvement on the method to calculate equilibrium entropy differences between classical energy levels proposed by Davis [S. Davis, Phys. Rev. E 84, 050101 (2011)]. We demonstrate that the modification is superior to the original whenever the energy levels are sufficiently closely spaced or whenever the microcanonical averaging needed in the method is carried out by importance sampling Monte Carlo. We also point out the necessary adjustments if Davis's method (improved or not) is to be used with molecular dynamics simulations.

Article Text

References (24)

  1. A. M. Ferrenberg and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 2635 (1988).
  2. P. Labastie and R. L. Whetten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1567 (1990).
  3. B. A. Berg and T. Neuhaus, Phys. Lett. B 267, 249 (1991).
  4. H.-P. Cheng, X. Li, R. L. Whetten, and R. S. Berry, Phys. Rev. A 46, 791 (1992).
  5. R. Poteau, F. Spiegelmann, and P. Labastie, Z. Phys. D: At. Mol. Clu. 30, 57 (1994).
  6. C. J. Geyer and E. A. Thompson, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90, 909 (1995).
  7. F. Calvo and P. Labastie, Chem. Phys. Lett. 247, 395 (1995).
  8. L. Ming, S. Nordholm, and H. W. Schranz, Chem. Phys. Lett. 248, 228 (1996).
  9. J.-S. Wang, T. K. Tay, and R. H. Swendsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 476 (1999).
  10. F. Wang and D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2050 (2001).
  11. A. B. Adib, Phys. Rev. E 71, 056128 (2005).
  12. F. Heilmann and K. H. Hoffmann, Europhys. Lett. 70, 155 (2005).
  13. J. Skilling, Bayesian Anal. 1, 833 (2006).
  14. L. B. Pártay, A. P. Bartók, and G. Csányi, J. Phys. Chem. B 114, 10502 (2010).
  15. H. Do, J. D. Hirst, and R. J. Wheatley, J. Chem. Phys. 135, 174105 (2011).
  16. R. A. X. Persson, Phys. Rev. E 86, 066708 (2012).
  17. S. Davis, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 410, 012161 (2013).
  18. S. Davis, Phys. Rev. E 84, 050101 (2011).
  19. E. S. Severin, B. C. Freasier, N. D. Hamer, D. L. Jolly, and S. Nordholm, Chem. Phys. Lett. 57, 117 (1978).
  20. H. W. Schranz, S. Nordholm, and G. Nyman, J. Chem. Phys. 94, 1487 (1991).
  21. J. R. Ray, Phys. Rev. A 44, 4061 (1991).
  22. J. R. Ray and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. E 59, 4781 (1999).
  23. For the sake of notational simplicity, we consider only the Monte Carlo probability distribution here. The argument is completely analogous in the molecular dynamics case.
  24. This analysis does hence not apply to the question of which sigma function is the most efficient in molecular dynamics.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation