Notes on the Hybrid Monte Carlo Method arxiv:1712.08278v1 [cond-at.stat-ech] 22 Dec 2017 Jerey C. Paler, 1, Air Haji-Akbari, 2, Rakesh S. Singh, 2 Fausto Martelli, 3 Roberto Car, 3 Athanassios Z. Panagiotopoulos, 2 and Pablo G. Debenedetti 2, 1 Departent of Cheical and Bioolecular Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA 2 Departent of Cheical and Biological Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA 3 Departent of Cheistry, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA Dated: Deceber 25, 2017 I. INTRODUCTION The hybrid Monte Carlo HMC ethod is a widely used olecular siulation technique for coputing the equilibriu properties of condensed atter systes [1 3]. The basic HMC algorith for sapling fro the canonical NVT enseble consists of three steps [3]: Step 1. Draw a coplete set of initial oenta p {p i } N i=1 fro the distribution P p. Step 2. Propagate a icrocanonical olecular dynaics MD trajectory using a tie-reversible and voluepreserving integrator e.g., the velocity-verlet algorith to take the syste fro state x to x, where x {x i } N i=1 is a coplete set of particle coordinates for the syste. The length of the trajectory t = n steps is specified by the nuber of integration steps n steps and tie step. Step 3. Accept or reject the new configuration x according to the Metropolis-Hastings criterion, P acc {x, p} {x, p } = in 1, e βux P p, 1 e βux P p where Ux is the potential energy of the syste. The ost coon choice for P p is the Maxwell-Boltzann MB distribution [1 3], PMBp std Ce βkp, 2 where β = k B T 1 and C is a teperature specific noralization constant. The kinetic energy Kp is defined using the standard expression fro classical echanics. For rigid bodies, for exaple, p {p co i, Ω i } N i=1, where p co i i v co i, v co i is the linear center of ass co velocity for olecule i, and ω i and Ω i denote olecule i s angular velocity and angular oentu, respectively. The j th coponent of olecule i s angular oentu j = 1, 2, 3 is Ω j = I j,k ω i,k k = 1, 2, 3, where I j,k denotes the generic olecule s i in this case inertia tensor. The kinetic energy for rigid bodies is thus given by Kp 1 N 2 i=1 [pco i p co i / i + ω i Ω i ]. Insertion of P MB p into Eq. 1 yields: Pacc std {x, p} {x, p } = in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p], 3 where Hx, p Hx, p Ux Ux+Kp Kp is the difference between the classical Hailtonians Hx, p and Hx, p. The superscript std in Eqs. 2 and 3 denotes that these are the standard choices for P p and P acc, which are used in the overwheling ajority of HMC siulation studies of condensed atter systes. When used together, they ensure that the HMC algorith will satisfy detailed balance and thus asyptotically saple configurations fro the Boltzann distribution P eq x e βux. Sapling can also be perfored using other initial oentu distributions that are even functions of p i.e., P p = P p [2, 3]. As we deonstrate below, however, it is generally necessary to odify the acceptance criterion as prescribed by Eq. 1 to preserve detailed balance. Hence if P p P MB p, then using the standard acceptance criterion in Eq. 3 will generally result in detailed balance violations and concoitant sapling errors. Corresponding author:jcpaler@uh.edu Current address: Departent of Cheical and Environental Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA Corresponding author:pdebene@princeton.edu
2 II. DETAILED BALANCE The detailed balance condition is given by: P eq xγx x = P eq x Γx x, 4 where P eq x is the equilibriu distribution and Γx x is the Markov transition probability fro state x to x. This condition is sufficient to ensure that P eq x will be a stationary state for the Markov processes generated by an MC sapling algorith. Here, we exaine the constraints Eq. 4 iposes on the choice of P p in the HMC algorith under the following conditions: i The MD trajectories are propagated using a tie-reversible and volue-preserving integration schee. The latter properties ensures that dxdp = dx dp ; non-volue-preserving integrators ay be used in HMC, but a Jacobian factor ust be incorporated into the acceptance criterion Eq. 1 to correct for the resulting copression of phase space [4]. ii P eq x is given by the Boltzann distribution P eq x e βux iii The trial trajectories are accepted using the standard criterion P std acc Eq. 3. iv The Hailtonian Hx, p is an even function of p i.e., Hx, p = Hx, p and defined using the standard expression for kinetic energy fro classical echanics. v The function P p is unspecified, but has the following properties: a b P p = P p P p is stationary i.e., the definition of P p does not change with tie. The initial p and final p oenta are thus both treated as variates fro this distribution. Note that this does not iply P p = P p, which would suggest unifority. For HMC, the forward transition probability fro x to x is given by [4]: Γx x = dpdp P pg{x, p} {x, p }Pacc std {x, p} {x, p } 5 = dpdp P pg{x, p} {x, p }in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p], 6 where g{x, p} {x, p } = δx x tδp p tδx x0δp p0 and δ is the Kronecker delta function. The function g{x, p} {x, p } gives the probability that an MD trajectory originating fro {x0, p0} = {x, p} will end up in state {x t, p t} = {x, p } after an elapsed tie t. Siilarly, the reverse transition probability Γx x can be written as [4]: Γx x = dpdp P pg{x, p} {x, p }Pacc std {x, p} {x, p } 7 = dpdp P pg{x, p} {x, p }in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p]. 8 In Eqs. 7 and 8 we follow the notation convention used in Ref. [4], whereby p denotes the generic set of oenta over which integration is perfored, and hence we can use p in conjunction with x. The notation is arbitrary, provided that one defines and uses p and p consistently and does not confuse these variables in anipulating the equations or aking variable substitutions. In particular, because P refers to a generic oentu distribution associated with the initial state of the transition under consideration, one can write, for a x x transition Eqs. 7 or 8 P pg{x, p} {x, p }Pacc std {x, p} {x, p } or P p g{x, p } {x, p}pacc std {x, p } {x, p}. Changing redefining integration variables [5] p p and p p and noting that dpdp = d [ p ] d [ p] yields: Γx x = dpdp P p g{x, p } {x, p}in 1, e β[hx, p Hx, p ]. 9 For a tie-reversible and volue-preserving integrator g{x, p } {x, p} = g{x, p} {x, p }. Additionally, assuing Hx, p = Hx, p and P p = P p, we obtain: Γx x = dpdp P p g{x, p} {x, p }in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p ]. 10
Invoking the identity in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p ] = e βhp,x e βhp,x in Γx x = = = e βux e βux 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p] : dpdp P p g{x, p} {x, p } e βhp,x e in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p] βhp,x 11 dpdp P pg{x, p} {x, p } P p e βux e βkp P p e βux e in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p] βkp 12 dpdp P pg{x, p} {x, p } P p e βkp P pe βkp in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p]. 13 Coparison with Eq. 6 reveals that the integrands differ by the boxed ter in Eq. 13. To satisfy detailed balance Eq. 4, the choice of P p ust therefore either ensure that the boxed ter in Eq. 13 is always unity or has no effect on the value of the integral when the integration over p and p is carried out. It is clear fro our derivation that neither of these criteria will be autoatically satisfied by an arbitrary distribution P p, even if it has the properties listed in point v above. The forer criterion is satisfied, however, by the Maxwell-Boltzann distribution P p = PMB stdp Eq. 2. Inserting the MB distribution into Eqs. 6 and 13, we find that the boxed ter in Eq. 13 is identically equal to 1. Subsequent inspection of Eqs. 6 and 13 reveals that Γx x = e βux Γx x, which is the detailed balance e condition Eq. 4. By contrast, identifying a distribution that unabiguously βux satisfies only the latter criterion is extreely challenging, as the integrals in Eq. 6 and 13 cannot usually be evaluated analytically. Other choices for P p are certainly possible, but HMC acceptance criterion in Eqs. 6 and 13 ust be redefined as prescribed by Eq. 1 to avoid violating detailed balance. 3 III. DETAILED BALANCE FOR THE ONE-DIMENSIONAL HARMONIC OSCILLATOR The analysis above deonstrates that choosing P p = PMB std p is generally required to satisfy detailed balance when HMC sapling is perfored using the standard acceptance criterion Pacc std Eq. 3. Here, we show analytically for a siple odel syste and velocity Verlet integrator that detailed balance can only be satisfied by P p = PMB stdp when P acc = Pacc std. For this case, the condition that P p = PMB std p is thus not only sufficient but also necessary. Consider the siple case of applying the HMC algorith to saple the configurations of a particle of ass in a one-diensional haronic well described by the potential energy function Ux = 1 2 kx2. Further, suppose that we define the kinetic energy using the standard expression Kp p2 2 and consider HMC oves that consist of only a single olecular dynaics integration step propagated using the tie reversible and volue-preserving velocity Verlet schee. Under these conditions, {x, p } is related to {x, p} via: x = x + p fx + 2 2 14 p = p + 1 2 [fx + fx], 15 where is the integration tie step and fx = dux dx = kx is the force acting on the particle. The detailed balance condition Eq. 4 ust be satisfied for all x and x. Thus we are free to choose x and x arbitrarily to siplify our analysis. Letting x = 0 and x 0, and noting that f0 = 0 and fx = kx, we obtain: x = p 16 p = p 1 2 kx = p1 1 2 k2. 17 These equations show that for a given choice of the sapling paraeter, only p = x will lead to an attepted HMC ove fro {x, p} {x, p }. Siilarly, they also reveal that p = x 1 2 kx is unique for a given. Therefore g will be given by: Additionally, we find that: g{x, p} {x, p } = δ p x δ p x + 1 2 kx. 18 Hx, p = x 2 2 2 19 Hx, p = x 2 2 2 + 1 8 k2 x 2 2 20
Using these expressions, we can now analyze the conditions under which the detailed balance Eq. 4 will be satisfied. For the selected x and x, the detailed balance condition Eq. 4 reduces to: Γx x = e βux e βux Γx x 21 = e β 2 kx 2 Γx x, 22 where we have substituted Ux = 0 and Ux = 1 2 kx 2. Inserting Eqs. 18, 19, and 20 into the expression for the forward transition probability given by Eq. 6, we obtain: Γx x = dpdp P pg{x, p} {x, p }in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p] 23 = dpdp P pδ p x δ p x + 1 [ ] 2 kx in 1, e β x 2 2 2 + 1 8 k2 x 2 2 x 2 2 2 24 x = P in 1, e β 8 k2 x 2 2 25 = P x 4 e β 8 k2 x 2 2, 26 where the last equality holds because β 8 k2 x 2 2 0. The reverse transition probability can also be evaluated in a siilar fashion fro Eq. 11: Γx x = dpdp P p g{x, p} {x, p } e βhp,x e in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p] 27 βhp,x = dpdp P p δ p x δ p x + 1 e βhp,x 2 kx e in 1, e β[hx,p Hx,p] 28 βhp,x x = P 1 2 kx e β 8 k2 x 2 2 in 1, e β 8 k2 x 2 2 29 x = P 1 2 kx e β 8 k2 x 2 2 e β 8 k2 x 2 2 30 = P x 1 2 kx Substituting Eqs. 26 and 31 into Eq. 22, we find that for detailed balance to hold, we need to have: x P e β 8 k2 x 2 2 = e β x 2 kx 2 P 1 2 kx which is clearly not satisfied for an arbitrary P. Letting φp := ln P p + βp 2 /2, we obtain: x ln P β x 8 k2 x 2 2 = ln P 1 2 kx β 2 kx 2 x φ βx 2 2 2 β x 8 k2 x 2 2 = φ 1 2 kx β x 1 2 2 2 kx β 2 kx 2 x βx φ 2 2 2 β x 8 k2 x 2 2 = φ 1 βx 2 kx 2 2 2 + β 2 kx 2 β 8 k2 x 2 2 β 2 kx 2 x x φ = φ 1 2 kx which can be atheatically stated as φbx = φax with b = /, a = / k/2. Because φbx = φax for all x, or ore generally, φb 2 x = φ [bbx ] = φ [abx ] = φ [bax ] = φ [aax ] = φa 2 x, 34 31 32 33 φb n x = φa n x 35
for n Z. Siilarly, φx = φ [b n x b n ] = φ [a n x b n ] [ a ] n = φ x. 36 b Without loss of generality, suppose a < b. Because Eq. 36 is valid for any n Z, it ust also hold in the liit that n. Taking this liit, we find that: [ a ] n [ φx = φ x a ] n = li b φ x = φ0 = const. n b Thus, in order for Eq. 33 to hold for any x, φp needs to be constant: or equivalently, φp = ln P p + βp 2 /2 = const., 37 p2 β P p e 2 = e βkp, 38 which is the Maxwell-Boltzann distribution. Hence, this derivation proves for the 1-D haronic oscillator odel syste that for detailed balance to hold when the standard HMC acceptance criterion Eq. 3 is used in conjunction with Kp p2 2, P p can only have the Maxwell-Boltzann distribution. 5 IV. A STATIONARY AND EVEN MOMENTUM DISTRIBUTION IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR DETAILED BALANCE The derivations outlined in Secs. II and III assue that P p is even i.e., P p = P p and stationary i.e., the initial oenta p and final oenta p are treated as variates fro the sae distribution, P p. As deonstrated by our analysis, however, these properties are not sufficient to satisfy detailed balance. This fact can also be shown nuerically by perforing HMC siulations of the Lennard-Jones odel for argon σ Ar = 0.3405 n, ɛ Ar /k B = 119.8 K, in which the potential is truncated at 3 σ Ar and standard long-range tail corrections are applied. We consider three HMC schees in which the target sapling teperature is specified by β 1 = k B T 1 1 : Schee I: HMC using P p e β2kp and Pacc std = in 1, e β 1 Ux e β 1 Kp, where β e β 1 Ux e β 1 Kp 2 = β 1. This schee corresponds to the standard HMC algorith, where the initial oenta are drawn fro the Maxwell-Boltzann distribution at the target sapling teperature β 1 = β 2 = k B T 1 1. As proved in Sec. II, this schee satisfies detailed balance. Schee II: HMC using P p e β2kp and Pacc od = in 1, e β 1 Ux e β 2 Kp, where β e β 1 Ux e β 2 Kp 2 < β 1. In this schee, the initial oenta are drawn fro a Maxwell-Boltzann distribution corresponding to an artificially high teperature β 2 in 1, e β 1 Ux P p e β 1 Ux P p detailed balance is satisfied for all choices of β 1 and β 2. = k B T 2 1, but the acceptance criterion has been odified such that Pacc od =, as prescribed by Eq. 1. This odified acceptance criterion is sufficient to ensure that = in 1, e β 1 Ux e β 1 Kp Schee III: HMC using P p e β2kp and Pacc std, where β 2 < β 1. In this schee, the initial oenta are drawn fro a Maxwell-Boltzann distribution corresponding to an artificially e β 1 Ux e β 1 Kp high teperature β 2 = k B T 2 1, but no odifications are ade to the standard acceptance criterion. As proved in Sec. III, this sapling schee, does not satisfy detailed balance, even though P p is an even function and stationary Fig. 1 We siulate N = 500 particles at a fixed density of 1.3778 g/c 3 and choose T 1 = 107.82K as our target sapling teperature. In ters of Lennard-Jones units, this corresponds to ρ = 0.820 and T = 0.9. In each case, sapling is perfored for 5 10 5 HMC oves, where each ove consists of 10 olecular dynaics integration steps using a 30 fs tie step. As expected, Schee I correctly predicts the average potential energy, as illustrated by the excellent agreeent with benchark data fro the National Institute for Science and Technology for the Lennard-Jones fluid Table I. As expected, it also satisfies the noralization condition e β H = 1 Table I. This rigorous statistical echanical relationship ust hold for all valid HMC sapling schees. Thus it provides a convenient consistency check for
detecting sapling errors associated with detailed balance violations. In the absence of sapling errors, we expect that e β H 1 σ 1 1, where σ is the estiated uncertainty. Accordingly, we find that Schee I satisfies this expectation. Siilarly, Schee II correctly predicts the average potential energy and obeys the noralization condition. Even though the initial velocities in Schee II are drawn fro the Maxwell-Boltzann distribution at an artificially high teperature T 2 = 117.82 K, the odified HMC acceptance ensures that detailed balance is satisfied and that the correct result is recovered. By contrast, Schee III does not satisfy detailed balance and hence fails to obey the noralization condition and correctly predict the equation of state Table I. The sapling errors produced by Schee III becoe ore pronounced as the velocity generation teperature T 2 increases fro 117.82 to 200.82 K. TABLE I: Equation of state data for Lennard-Jones argon at a target sapling teperature T 1 = 107.82 K U /N kj ol 1 e β H 1 σ 1 NIST Ref. Data a -5.72307 b Schee I T 1 = 107.82 K -5.72311 0.68 Schee II T 1 = 107.82 K; T 2 = 117.82 K -5.72312 0.47 Schee III T 1 = 107.82 K; T 2 = 117.82 K -5.64441 3.5 Schee III T 1 = 107.82 K; T 2 = 150.82 K -5.39982 21.4 Schee III T 1 = 107.82 K; T 2 = 200.82 K -5.06232 12.5 a Benchark data fro the National Institute of Standards and Technology https://lapps.nist.gov/srs/lj_pure/c.ht, which has been converted fro Lennard-Jones units b Nuber in parentheses denotes uncertainty in the last significant digit 6 FIG. 1: The proposed red and accepted blue velocity distributions are statistically indistinguishable for all sapling schees and choices of T 2. Thus, the velocity distribution is stationary regardless of whether detailed balance is satisfied by the algorith. The green lines show the Maxwell-Boltzann distribution at the indicated teperature T 2. Schee III does not satisfy detailed balance and hence does not yield the correct equation of state for the Lennard-Jones fluid Table I, even though the velocity distribution is an even function and stationary. These two criteria are therefore not sufficient to ensure detailed balance In each sapling schee, P p is an even function of p by construction. Additionally, P p is stationary under each sapling schee, regardless of whether detailed balance is satisfied by the algorith Fig. 1. Thus, in agreeent with our proof in Sec. III, these results deonstrate that stationarity and evenness of P p are not sufficient conditions for detailed balance. If one wishes to use the standard HMC acceptance criterion and definition of kinetic energy given in Sec. I, initial velocities should be drawn fro the Maxwell-Boltzann distribution at the target sapling
teperature to satisfy detailed balance see Sec. III. As Schee II illustrates, detailed balance can be satisfied using other choices for P p, if the HMC acceptance criterion is odified appropriately. 7 V. HMC USING PARTIAL MOMENTUM UPDATES The HMC algorith outlined in Sec. I assues that a copletely new set of initial oenta are drawn fro P p in Step 1. It also possible to perfor HMC using correlated saples fro P p that are generated by partially refreshing the oenta fro the end of the previous MC step. Wagoner and Pande [6] have rigorously proved, however, that the sign of the oenta ust be changed negated either upon acceptance or rejection of each HMC ove for this schee to satisfy balance i.e., leave P eq x e βux stationary and thus saple fro the correct equilibriu distribution. Indeed, nuerical studies have shown that oitting this iportant step results in detectable sapling errors [7]. [1] S. Duane, A. D. Kennedy, B. J. Pendleton, and D. Roweth, Phys. Lett. B 195, 216-222 1987. [2] B. Mehlig, D. W. Heerann, and B. M. Forest, Phys. Rev. B 45, 679-685 1992. [3] M. Allen and D. Quigley, Mol. Phys. 111, 3442-3447 2013. [4] N. Matubayasi and M. Nakahara, J. Che. Phys. 110, 32911999. [5] M. Tuckeran, Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Molecular Siulation Oxford University Press, 2010. [6] J. A. Wagoner and V. S. Pande, J. Che. Phys. 137, 214105 2012. [7] E. Akhatskaya, N. Bou-Rabee, and S. Reich, J. Cop. Phys. 19, 7492-7496 2009.