# Untitled Document

REEXAMINATION OF SEVEN-DIMENSIONAL SITE PERCOLATION THRESHOLDS

Dietrich Stauffer<sup>1</sup> and Robert M. Ziff<sup>2</sup>

<sup>1</sup> Institute for Theoretical Physics, Cologne University, D-50923 Köln, Euroland

<sup>2</sup> Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2136, USA

e-mail: stauffer@thp.uni-koeln.de, rziff@umich.edu

Monte Carlo simulations alone could not clarify the corrections to scaling for the size-dependent $`p_c(L)`$ above the upper critical dimension. Including the previous series estimate for the bulk threshold $`p_c(\mathrm{})`$ gives preference for the complicated corrections predicted by renormalization group and against the simple $`1/L`$ extrapolation. Additional Monte-Carlo simulations using the Leath method corroborate the series result for $`p_c`$.

Keywords: Monte Carlo, 1/d expansion, finite-size scaling

How to extrapolate from finite samples of linear dimension $`L`$ to the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ is an important problem in physics simulations. Above the upper critical dimension (4 in usual Ising models, 6 in random percolation), the critical exponents are known but nevertheless controversies remain<sup>1</sup> for the five-dimensional Ising model. Earlier, for site percolation in seven dimensions, the numerical variation of the apparent threshold $`p_c(L)=p_c`$ on a hypercubic lattice with $`L^7`$ sites could be fitted<sup>2</sup> on $`p_c(\mathrm{})p_c(L)1/L`$, but also<sup>3</sup> on the theoretical prediction $`p_c(\mathrm{})p_c(L)1/L^2\mathrm{const}/L^{7/3}`$. Also for three-dimensional self-avoiding walks one may assume one empirical correction term, or many terms as predicted by renormalization methods with more free parameters<sup>4</sup>. Therefore the present note reexamines seven-dimensional site percolation in the search of a clarifying example, using a much better Cray-T3E computer and a slightly improved program<sup>5</sup> compared with ref.2.

We checked if the top of the hypercube is connected with the bottom hyperplane, using helical boundary conditions in five and free boundaries in the two remaining directions<sup>5</sup> and a Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm without recycling<sup>6</sup>. Random number generation by integer multiplication with 16807 gave problems for $`L=4,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}8},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}`$ even for 64-bit arithmetic, but otherwise agreed with results from the Kirkpatrick-Stoll R250 generator; only the latter method was used for the data shown here. About 640 samples were averaged over for each $`L`$, giving an accuracy of about $`10^4`$ for $`p_c`$ in large lattices. ($`[<p_c^2><p_c>^2]^{1/2}`$ was not investigated in detail since it seems to vary as $`1/L^2`$.) Fig.1 shows our results for $`L`$ up to 20, together with a linear fit

$$p_c(L)=0.09090.12/L$$
$`(1)`$   
and the same fit as published before<sup>3</sup>:

$$p_c(L)=0.08873.3/L^2+5/L^{7/3}.$$
$`(2)`$   
We see that for large $`L`$ both fits agree nicely with our new Monte Carlo results: On the basis of these simulations alone no preference for one fit over the other is visible. However, when we extract from series expansions<sup>7</sup> (in terms of reciprocal dimensionality) a bulk $`p_c`$ of about 0.089, then the more complicated fit (2) is clearly preferred over the linear fit (1). This is a nice example how the combination of series with Monte Carlo techniques can give some answers which are not clear from each technique separately<sup>8</sup>. However, a more direct and new series expansion determination of $`p_c`$ would be desirable.

If we would have simulated $`L=40`$ instead of $`L=20`$ we might have chosen between the two fits on the basis of simulations alone. Such a size would have required about two orders of magnitude more in computer time and memory than the about 4000 processor hours (512 Mbyte each) used here.

(About boundary conditions: If we check whether top and bottom are connected we cannot use vertical periodic boundary conditions. As long as not all directions are treated with periodic boundary conditions, and at least one direction uses free boundaries, the finite-size effects are expected to be dominated by the free boundaries. The bulk $`p_c`$ value is independent of the boundary conditions, and so may be the powers of $`L`$ in finite-size corrections, but finite-size amplitudes as well as the fraction of samples spanning at $`p_c`$ depend on such details.<sup>9</sup> The Hoshen-Kopelman algorithm stores only one line of a square lattice at any one moment, and then it is simplest to use free boundaries also in this direction. In higher dimensions it is practical to store the $`L^{d1}`$ sites of the one hyperplane kept in memory by a one-dimensional index $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},L^{d1}`$. In this way <sup>5</sup> we come to our mixture of helical and free boundary conditions.)

Thus, to show that Monte Carlo can compete with series expansions, we made a different determination of the bulk $`p_c`$ using the Leath cluster growth algorithm<sup>10</sup>. Here, when a cluster stops growing before touching the boundaries, its properties are completely free of finite-size effects, and such data cannot be directly compared with the above Hoshen-Kopelman data for $`p_c(L)`$. However, the bulk $`p_c`$ must be the same. We determined $`p_c`$ by the methods given recently for three-dimensional lattices<sup>11</sup>. We considered a virtual lattice of size $`32^7`$ and a maximum size cut-off of 16384 sites, and simulated $`10^6`$$`10^7`$ clusters each at various values of $`p`$. The clusters are grown independently for each value of $`p`$, since in this method the random numbers are not assigned to all lattice sites but only to those the cluster visits.

It turned out that some of the largest clusters clusters (of maximum size of 16384 sites) wrapped a bit around the periodic boundary of the system, which could conceivably lead to the cluster touching itself and cause a bias. However, because of the very large number of sites in the lattice, the probability of this occurring is very low. (We could not easily check for wraparound error in our program.) In any case, the data for smaller clusters (where no wraparound was even possible) and for $`s=16485`$ was completely consistent.

Near the critical point, $`P_s`$, defined as the probability that a cluster grows to a size greater than or equal to $`s`$, behaves as

$$P_ss^{2\tau }f((pp_c)s^\sigma )s^{2\tau }(A+B(pp_c)s^\sigma +\mathrm{})$$
$`(3)`$   
where $`\tau =5/2`$ and $`\sigma =1/2`$ for $`d6`$. Thus in Fig. 2 we plot $`s^{1/2}P_s`$ vs. $`s^{1/2}`$ for $`p=0.0885,`$ 0.0888, 0.0889 and 0.0890, and find good agreement with the expected behavior with $`A1.44`$, $`B20`$, and

$$p_c=0.08893\pm 0.00002$$
$`(4)`$   
which is in excellent agreement with the series extrapolation<sup>7</sup>. With this value, the simple fit of eq (1) can be excluded since it requires $`p_c=0.091`$.

Acknowledgements

We thank A. Aharony, D.L. Hunter and N. Jan for discussions leading to this work, which was supported by GIF and the German Supercomputer Center, Jülich. RZ acknowledges support from the U. S. National Science Foundation under grant DMR-9502700.

References:

1. H.W.J.Blöte and E. Luijten, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3662 (1996) and Europhys. Lett. 38, 565 (1997); X.S. Chen and V. Dohm, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 9, 1007 and 1073 (1998); E. Luijten, K. Binder and H. W. J. Blöte, Eur. Phys. J. B 9, 289 (1999); M. Cheon, I. Chang and D. Stauffer, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 10, 131 (1999).

2. D. Stauffer, Physica A 210, 317 (1994).

3. A. Aharony and D. Stauffer, Physica A 215, 342 (1995).

4. S. Joseph, D. L. Hunter, D. MacDonald, L.L. Moseley, N. Jan and T. Guttmann, preprint

5. D. Stauffer and N. Jan, in: Annual Reviews of Computational Physics, vol. VIII (Zanjan proceedings), World Scientific, Singapore 2000.

6. D. Stauffer and A. Aharony, Introduction to Percolation Theory, Taylor and Francis, London 1994; A. Bunde and S. Havlin, Fractals and Disordered Systems, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 1996; M. Sahimi, Applications of Percolation Theory, Taylor and Francis, London, 1994. For recent percolation thresholds see S.C. van der Marck, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 9, 529 (1998).

7. D.S. Gaunt, M.F. Sykes and H.J. Ruskin, J. Phys. A 9, 1899 (1976).

8. J. Adler, page 241 in: Annual Reviews of Computational Physics, vol. IV, World Scientific, Singapore 1996.

9. M. Ford, D.L. Hunter, and N. Jan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C 10, 183 (1999).

10. P.L. Leath, Phys. Rev. B 14, 5046 (1976).

11. C.D. Lorenz and R.M. Ziff, Phys. Rev. E 57, 230 (1998).

Fig.1: Effective thresholds $`p_c(L)`$ versus $`1/L`$, together with eqs.(1,2). Part a gives the overall trend, part b expands the region of large lattices. The horizontal line is the series extrapolation for infinite $`L`$.

Fig.2: Plots of $`s^{1/2}P_s`$ vs $`s^{1/2}`$ from the Leath simulations, for $`p=0.0890,`$ 0.0889, 0.0888, and 0.0885 from top to bottom. The slopes of the three upper curves are 0.0014, -0.0006 and -0.0026 respectively.