<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Lptmswikids</id>
	<title>Disordered Systems Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Lptmswikids"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php/Special:Contributions/Lptmswikids"/>
	<updated>2026-04-29T10:23:38Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.6</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3726</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3726"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T16:41:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)].&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi, \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions. Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega= \theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega= d \theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Polymer partition function and propagator of a quantum particle===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s perform the following change of variables: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\tau=i t&#039; &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We also identifies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hbar&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t= -i t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,\tilde t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(\tilde t)=x} {\cal D} x(t&#039;) \exp\left[ \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  S[x]=  \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the classical action of a particle with kinetic energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  time dependent potential &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(x(\tau),\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, evolving from time zero to time &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
From the Feymann path integral formulation, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,\tilde t]&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  is the propagator of the quantum particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In absence of disorder, one can find the propagator of the free particle, that, in the original variables, writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)=\frac{e^{-x^2/(2Tt)}}{\sqrt{2 \pi Tt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Feynman-Kac formula==&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s derive the Feyman Kac formula for  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Z(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in the general case:&lt;br /&gt;
* First, focus on free paths and introduce the following probability&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 \right] \delta\left(   \int_0^t d \tau V(x(\tau),\tau)-A \right)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Second, the moments generating function &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x ,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty d A e^{-p A} P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) e^{-\frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2  -p \int_0^t d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Third, the backward approach. Consider free paths evolving up to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t+dt&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and reaching &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t+dt} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle=  \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle e^{-p V(x,t) d t } =[1 -p V(x,t) d t +\dots]\left\langle Z_p(x-\Delta x,t) \right\rangle_{\Delta x}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over all free paths, while  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle_{\Delta x}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over the last jump, namely   &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x \rangle=0&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x^2 \rangle=T d t  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* At the lowest order we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= Z_p(x,t) +dt \left[ \frac{T}{2} \partial_x^2 Z_p -p V(x,t) Z_p \right] +O(dt^2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p=1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; we obtain the partition function is the solution of the Schrodinger-like equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\partial_t Z(x,t) =-  \hat H Z = - \left[ -\frac{T}{2}\frac{d^2 }{d x^2} + \frac{V(x,\tau)}{T}\right] Z(x,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t=0]=\delta(x)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Remarks===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 1:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This equation is a diffusive equation with multiplicative noise. Edwards Wilkinson is instead a diffusive equation with additive noise. The Cole Hopf transformation allows to map the diffusive equation with multiplicative noise in a non-linear equation with additive noise. We will apply this tranformation and have a surprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 2:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This hamiltonian is time dependent because of the multiplicative noise &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;V(x,\tau)/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For a &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; time independent &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; hamiltonian, we can use the spectrum of the operator. In general we will have to parts: &lt;br /&gt;
* A discrete set of eigenvalues &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with the eigenstates &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_n(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* A continuum part where the states &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_E(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; have energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We define the density of states (DOS) &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, such that the number of states with energy in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E, E+dE)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E) dE &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
In this case &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,t] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; can be written has the sum of two contributions:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t] = \left( e^{- \hat H t} \right)_{0 \to x}= \sum_n \psi_n(0) \psi_n^*(x) e^{- E_n t} + \int_0^\infty dE \, \rho(E) \psi_E(0) \psi_E^*(x) e^{- E t}.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Exercise: free particle in 1D====&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 1: The spectrum&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
For a free particle there a no discrete eigenvalue, but only a continuum spectrum. In 1D the hamiltonian is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \hat H =-(T/2) \partial_x^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
Show that the continuum spectrum  has the form&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_k(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i k x} ,\quad \text{with}   \; E_k =\frac{ T k^2}{2}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a real number, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a positive number. Note that the states are delocalized on the entire real axis and they cannot be normalized to unit but you impose the Dirac delta normalization:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \psi_{k&#039;}^*(x)\psi_k(x) = \delta(k-k&#039;)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 2: the DOS &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For a given energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; there are two states &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-i \sqrt{2 E/T} x} ,\quad \text{and}  ,\quad \psi_E^{+}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i \sqrt{2 E/T} x}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the definition of DOS &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E)=  \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dk \,\delta(E-E_k) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; ans show that for both &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) , \psi_E^{-}(x)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; you have  :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 E T} }   &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 3: the propagator &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the spectral decomposition of the propagator to recover &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Tip:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \exp[-(a x^2 +b x)]= \sqrt{\pi/a} \exp[b^2/(4 a)]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cole Hopf Transformation==&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T =2 \nu &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x = r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;   Z(x,t) = \exp\left(\frac{\lambda}{2 \nu} h(r,t) \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;- V(x,t)=\lambda  \eta(r,t) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
You get&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \partial_t h(r,t)= \nu \nabla^2 h(r,t)+ \frac{\lambda}{2} (\nabla h)^2 + \eta(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The KPZ equation! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can establish a KPZ/Directed polymer dictionary, valid in any dimension. Let us remark that the free energy of the polymer is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
F= - T \ln  Z(x,t) = \frac{-1}{\lambda} h(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At low temperature, the free energy approaches the ground state energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Dictionary&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! KPZ  !! KPZ exponents !! Directed polymer !! Directed polymer exponents&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r \sim t^{1/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x\sim t^{\zeta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; ||&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim t^{\alpha/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim r^{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F, E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}})^2} \sim t^{2\theta} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We conclude that &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta  =\alpha/z,  \quad \zeta=1/z &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the scaling relation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta =2 \zeta- 1 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a reincarnation of the Galilean invariance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\alpha +z =2&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3725</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3725"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T16:38:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3724</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3724"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T12:38:01Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Back to the continuum model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)].&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi, \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions. Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega= \theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega= d \theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Polymer partition function and propagator of a quantum particle===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s perform the following change of variables: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\tau=i t&#039; &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We also identifies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hbar&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t= -i t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,\tilde t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(\tilde t)=x} {\cal D} x(t&#039;) \exp\left[ \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  S[x]=  \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the classical action of a particle with kinetic energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  time dependent potential &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(x(\tau),\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, evolving from time zero to time &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
From the Feymann path integral formulation, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,\tilde t]&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  is the propagator of the quantum particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In absence of disorder, one can find the propagator of the free particle, that, in the original variables, writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)=\frac{e^{-x^2/(2Tt)}}{\sqrt{2 \pi Tt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Feynman-Kac formula==&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s derive the Feyman Kac formula for  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Z(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in the general case:&lt;br /&gt;
* First, focus on free paths and introduce the following probability&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 \right] \delta\left(   \int_0^t d \tau V(x(\tau),\tau)-A \right)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Second, the moments generating function &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x ,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty d A e^{-p A} P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) e^{-\frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2  -p \int_0^t d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Third, the backward approach. Consider free paths evolving up to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t+dt&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and reaching &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t+dt} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle=  \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle e^{-p V(x,t) d t } =[1 -p V(x,t) d t +\dots]\left\langle Z_p(x-\Delta x,t) \right\rangle_{\Delta x}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over all free paths, while  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle_{\Delta x}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over the last jump, namely   &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x \rangle=0&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x^2 \rangle=T d t  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* At the lowest order we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= Z_p(x,t) +dt \left[ \frac{T}{2} \partial_x^2 Z_p -p V(x,t) Z_p \right] +O(dt^2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p=1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; we obtain the partition function is the solution of the Schrodinger-like equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\partial_t Z(x,t) =-  \hat H Z = - \left[ -\frac{T}{2}\frac{d^2 }{d x^2} + \frac{V(x,\tau)}{T}\right] Z(x,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t=0]=\delta(x)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3723</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3723"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T12:10:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)].&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi, \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions. Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega= \theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega= d \theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3722</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3722"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T11:58:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)]. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi, \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions.  Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= d \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3721</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3721"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T11:56:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)]. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi,   \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions.  Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= d \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3720</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3720"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T11:54:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3719</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3719"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T11:53:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Polymer partition function and propagator of a quantum particle===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s perform the following change of variables: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\tau=i t&#039; &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We also identifies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hbar&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t= -i t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,\tilde t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(\tilde t)=x} {\cal D} x(t&#039;) \exp\left[ \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  S[x]=  \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the classical action of a particle with kinetic energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  time dependent potential &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(x(\tau),\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, evolving from time zero to time &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
From the Feymann path integral formulation, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,\tilde t]&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  is the propagator of the quantum particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In absence of disorder, one can find the propagator of the free particle, that, in the original variables, writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)=\frac{e^{-x^2/(2Tt)}}{\sqrt{2 \pi Tt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Feynman-Kac formula==&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s derive the Feyman Kac formula for  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Z(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in the general case:&lt;br /&gt;
* First, focus on free paths and introduce the following probability&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 \right] \delta\left(   \int_0^t d \tau V(x(\tau),\tau)-A \right)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Second, the moments generating function &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x ,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty d A e^{-p A} P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) e^{-\frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2  -p \int_0^t d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Third, the backward approach. Consider free paths evolving up to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t+dt&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and reaching &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t+dt} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle=  \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle e^{-p V(x,t) d t } =[1 -p V(x,t) d t +\dots]\left\langle Z_p(x-\Delta x,t) \right\rangle_{\Delta x}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over all free paths, while  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle_{\Delta x}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over the last jump, namely   &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x \rangle=0&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x^2 \rangle=T d t  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* At the lowest order we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= Z_p(x,t) +dt \left[ \frac{T}{2} \partial_x^2 Z_p -p V(x,t) Z_p \right] +O(dt^2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p=1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; we obtain the partition function is the solution of the Schrodinger-like equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\partial_t Z(x,t) =-  \hat H Z = - \left[ -\frac{T}{2}\frac{d^2 }{d x^2} + \frac{V(x,\tau)}{T}\right] Z(x,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t=0]=\delta(x)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Remarks===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 1:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This equation is a diffusive equation with multiplicative noise. Edwards Wilkinson is instead a diffusive equation with additive noise. The Cole Hopf transformation allows to map the diffusive equation with multiplicative noise in a non-linear equation with additive noise. We will apply this tranformation and have a surprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 2:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This hamiltonian is time dependent because of the multiplicative noise &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;V(x,\tau)/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For a &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; time independent &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; hamiltonian, we can use the spectrum of the operator. In general we will have to parts: &lt;br /&gt;
* A discrete set of eigenvalues &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with the eigenstates &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_n(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* A continuum part where the states &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_E(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; have energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We define the density of states (DOS) &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, such that the number of states with energy in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E, E+dE)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E) dE &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
In this case &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,t] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; can be written has the sum of two contributions:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t] = \left( e^{- \hat H t} \right)_{0 \to x}= \sum_n \psi_n(0) \psi_n^*(x) e^{- E_n t} + \int_0^\infty dE \, \rho(E) \psi_E(0) \psi_E^*(x) e^{- E t}.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Exercise: free particle in 1D====&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 1: The spectrum&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
For a free particle there a no discrete eigenvalue, but only a continuum spectrum. In 1D the hamiltonian is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \hat H =-(T/2) \partial_x^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
Show that the continuum spectrum  has the form&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_k(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i k x} ,\quad \text{with}   \; E_k =\frac{ T k^2}{2}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a real number, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a positive number. Note that the states are delocalized on the entire real axis and they cannot be normalized to unit but you impose the Dirac delta normalization:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \psi_{k&#039;}^*(x)\psi_k(x) = \delta(k-k&#039;)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 2: the DOS &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For a given energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; there are two states &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-i \sqrt{2 E/T} x} ,\quad \text{and}  ,\quad \psi_E^{+}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i \sqrt{2 E/T} x}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the definition of DOS &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E)=  \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dk \,\delta(E-E_k) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; ans show that for both &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) , \psi_E^{-}(x)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; you have  :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 E T} }   &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 3: the propagator &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the spectral decomposition of the propagator to recover &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Tip:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \exp[-(a x^2 +b x)]= \sqrt{\pi/a} \exp[b^2/(4 a)]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cole Hopf Transformation==&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T =2 \nu &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x = r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;   Z(x,t) = \exp\left(\frac{\lambda}{2 \nu} h(r,t) \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;- V(x,t)=\lambda  \eta(r,t) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
You get&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \partial_t h(r,t)= \nu \nabla^2 h(r,t)+ \frac{\lambda}{2} (\nabla h)^2 + \eta(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The KPZ equation! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can establish a KPZ/Directed polymer dictionary, valid in any dimension. Let us remark that the free energy of the polymer is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
F= - T \ln  Z(x,t) = \frac{-1}{\lambda} h(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At low temperature, the free energy approaches the ground state energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Dictionary&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! KPZ  !! KPZ exponents !! Directed polymer !! Directed polymer exponents&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r \sim t^{1/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x\sim t^{\zeta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; ||&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim t^{\alpha/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim r^{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F, E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}})^2} \sim t^{2\theta} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We conclude that &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta  =\alpha/z,  \quad \zeta=1/z &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the scaling relation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta =2 \zeta- 1 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a reincarnation of the Galilean invariance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\alpha +z =2&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3718</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3718"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T11:53:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)]. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi,   \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions.  Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= d \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Polymer partition function and propagator of a quantum particle===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s perform the following change of variables: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\tau=i t&#039; &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We also identifies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hbar&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t= -i t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,\tilde t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(\tilde t)=x} {\cal D} x(t&#039;) \exp\left[ \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  S[x]=  \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the classical action of a particle with kinetic energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  time dependent potential &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(x(\tau),\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, evolving from time zero to time &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
From the Feymann path integral formulation, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,\tilde t]&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  is the propagator of the quantum particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In absence of disorder, one can find the propagator of the free particle, that, in the original variables, writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)=\frac{e^{-x^2/(2Tt)}}{\sqrt{2 \pi Tt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Feynman-Kac formula==&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s derive the Feyman Kac formula for  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Z(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in the general case:&lt;br /&gt;
* First, focus on free paths and introduce the following probability&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 \right] \delta\left(   \int_0^t d \tau V(x(\tau),\tau)-A \right)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Second, the moments generating function &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x ,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty d A e^{-p A} P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) e^{-\frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2  -p \int_0^t d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Third, the backward approach. Consider free paths evolving up to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t+dt&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and reaching &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t+dt} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle=  \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle e^{-p V(x,t) d t } =[1 -p V(x,t) d t +\dots]\left\langle Z_p(x-\Delta x,t) \right\rangle_{\Delta x}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over all free paths, while  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle_{\Delta x}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over the last jump, namely   &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x \rangle=0&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x^2 \rangle=T d t  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* At the lowest order we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= Z_p(x,t) +dt \left[ \frac{T}{2} \partial_x^2 Z_p -p V(x,t) Z_p \right] +O(dt^2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p=1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; we obtain the partition function is the solution of the Schrodinger-like equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\partial_t Z(x,t) =-  \hat H Z = - \left[ -\frac{T}{2}\frac{d^2 }{d x^2} + \frac{V(x,\tau)}{T}\right] Z(x,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t=0]=\delta(x)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Remarks===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 1:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This equation is a diffusive equation with multiplicative noise. Edwards Wilkinson is instead a diffusive equation with additive noise. The Cole Hopf transformation allows to map the diffusive equation with multiplicative noise in a non-linear equation with additive noise. We will apply this tranformation and have a surprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 2:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This hamiltonian is time dependent because of the multiplicative noise &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;V(x,\tau)/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For a &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; time independent &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; hamiltonian, we can use the spectrum of the operator. In general we will have to parts: &lt;br /&gt;
* A discrete set of eigenvalues &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with the eigenstates &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_n(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* A continuum part where the states &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_E(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; have energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We define the density of states (DOS) &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, such that the number of states with energy in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E, E+dE)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E) dE &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
In this case &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,t] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; can be written has the sum of two contributions:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t] = \left( e^{- \hat H t} \right)_{0 \to x}= \sum_n \psi_n(0) \psi_n^*(x) e^{- E_n t} + \int_0^\infty dE \, \rho(E) \psi_E(0) \psi_E^*(x) e^{- E t}.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Exercise: free particle in 1D====&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 1: The spectrum&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
For a free particle there a no discrete eigenvalue, but only a continuum spectrum. In 1D the hamiltonian is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \hat H =-(T/2) \partial_x^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
Show that the continuum spectrum  has the form&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_k(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i k x} ,\quad \text{with}   \; E_k =\frac{ T k^2}{2}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a real number, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a positive number. Note that the states are delocalized on the entire real axis and they cannot be normalized to unit but you impose the Dirac delta normalization:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \psi_{k&#039;}^*(x)\psi_k(x) = \delta(k-k&#039;)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 2: the DOS &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For a given energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; there are two states &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-i \sqrt{2 E/T} x} ,\quad \text{and}  ,\quad \psi_E^{+}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i \sqrt{2 E/T} x}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the definition of DOS &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E)=  \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dk \,\delta(E-E_k) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; ans show that for both &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) , \psi_E^{-}(x)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; you have  :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 E T} }   &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 3: the propagator &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the spectral decomposition of the propagator to recover &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Tip:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \exp[-(a x^2 +b x)]= \sqrt{\pi/a} \exp[b^2/(4 a)]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cole Hopf Transformation==&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T =2 \nu &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x = r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;   Z(x,t) = \exp\left(\frac{\lambda}{2 \nu} h(r,t) \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;- V(x,t)=\lambda  \eta(r,t) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
You get&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \partial_t h(r,t)= \nu \nabla^2 h(r,t)+ \frac{\lambda}{2} (\nabla h)^2 + \eta(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The KPZ equation! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can establish a KPZ/Directed polymer dictionary, valid in any dimension. Let us remark that the free energy of the polymer is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
F= - T \ln  Z(x,t) = \frac{-1}{\lambda} h(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At low temperature, the free energy approaches the ground state energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Dictionary&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! KPZ  !! KPZ exponents !! Directed polymer !! Directed polymer exponents&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r \sim t^{1/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x\sim t^{\zeta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; ||&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim t^{\alpha/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim r^{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F, E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}})^2} \sim t^{2\theta} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We conclude that &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta  =\alpha/z,  \quad \zeta=1/z &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the scaling relation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta =2 \zeta- 1 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a reincarnation of the Galilean invariance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\alpha +z =2&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3717</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3717"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T11:11:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)]. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi,   \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions.  Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= d \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Polymer partition function and propagator of a quantum particle===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s perform the following change of variables: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\tau=i t&#039; &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We also identifies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hbar&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t= -i t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,\tilde t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(\tilde t)=x} {\cal D} x(t&#039;) \exp\left[ \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  S[x]=  \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the classical action of a particle with kinetic energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  time dependent potential &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(x(\tau),\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, evolving from time zero to time &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
From the Feymann path integral formulation, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,\tilde t]&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  is the propagator of the quantum particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In absence of disorder, one can find the propagator of the free particle, that, in the original variables, writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)=\frac{e^{-x^2/(2Tt)}}{\sqrt{2 \pi Tt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Feynman-Kac formula==&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s derive the Feyman Kac formula for  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Z(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in the general case:&lt;br /&gt;
* First, focus on free paths and introduce the following probability&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 \right] \delta\left(   \int_0^t d \tau V(x(\tau),\tau)-A \right)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Second, the moments generating function &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x ,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty d A e^{-p A} P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) e^{-\frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2  -p \int_0^t d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Third, the backward approach. Consider free paths evolving up to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t+dt&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and reaching &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t+dt} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle=  \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle e^{-p V(x,t) d t } =[1 -p V(x,t) d t +\dots]\left\langle Z_p(x-\Delta x,t) \right\rangle_{\Delta x}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over all free paths, while  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle_{\Delta x}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over the last jump, namely   &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x \rangle=0&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x^2 \rangle=T d t  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* At the lowest order we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= Z_p(x,t) +dt \left[ \frac{T}{2} \partial_x^2 Z_p -p V(x,t) Z_p \right] +O(dt^2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p=1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; we obtain the partition function is the solution of the Schrodinger-like equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\partial_t Z(x,t) =-  \hat H Z = - \left[ -\frac{T}{2}\frac{d^2 }{d x^2} + \frac{V(x,\tau)}{T}\right] Z(x,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t=0]=\delta(x)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Remarks===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 1:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This equation is a diffusive equation with multiplicative noise. Edwards Wilkinson is instead a diffusive equation with additive noise. The Cole Hopf transformation allows to map the diffusive equation with multiplicative noise in a non-linear equation with additive noise. We will apply this tranformation and have a surprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 2:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This hamiltonian is time dependent because of the multiplicative noise &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;V(x,\tau)/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For a &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; time independent &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; hamiltonian, we can use the spectrum of the operator. In general we will have to parts: &lt;br /&gt;
* A discrete set of eigenvalues &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with the eigenstates &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_n(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* A continuum part where the states &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_E(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; have energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We define the density of states (DOS) &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, such that the number of states with energy in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E, E+dE)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E) dE &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
In this case &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,t] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; can be written has the sum of two contributions:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t] = \left( e^{- \hat H t} \right)_{0 \to x}= \sum_n \psi_n(0) \psi_n^*(x) e^{- E_n t} + \int_0^\infty dE \, \rho(E) \psi_E(0) \psi_E^*(x) e^{- E t}.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Exercise: free particle in 1D====&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 1: The spectrum&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
For a free particle there a no discrete eigenvalue, but only a continuum spectrum. In 1D the hamiltonian is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \hat H =-(T/2) \partial_x^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
Show that the continuum spectrum  has the form&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_k(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i k x} ,\quad \text{with}   \; E_k =\frac{ T k^2}{2}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a real number, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a positive number. Note that the states are delocalized on the entire real axis and they cannot be normalized to unit but you impose the Dirac delta normalization:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \psi_{k&#039;}^*(x)\psi_k(x) = \delta(k-k&#039;)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 2: the DOS &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For a given energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; there are two states &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-i \sqrt{2 E/T} x} ,\quad \text{and}  ,\quad \psi_E^{+}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i \sqrt{2 E/T} x}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the definition of DOS &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E)=  \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dk \,\delta(E-E_k) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; ans show that for both &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) , \psi_E^{-}(x)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; you have  :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 E T} }   &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 3: the propagator &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the spectral decomposition of the propagator to recover &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Tip:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \exp[-(a x^2 +b x)]= \sqrt{\pi/a} \exp[b^2/(4 a)]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cole Hopf Transformation==&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T =2 \nu &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x = r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;   Z(x,t) = \exp\left(\frac{\lambda}{2 \nu} h(r,t) \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;- V(x,t)=\lambda  \eta(r,t) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
You get&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \partial_t h(r,t)= \nu \nabla^2 h(r,t)+ \frac{\lambda}{2} (\nabla h)^2 + \eta(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The KPZ equation! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can establish a KPZ/Directed polymer dictionary, valid in any dimension. Let us remark that the free energy of the polymer is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
F= - T \ln  Z(x,t) = \frac{-1}{\lambda} h(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At low temperature, the free energy approaches the ground state energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Dictionary&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! KPZ  !! KPZ exponents !! Directed polymer !! Directed polymer exponents&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; r \sim t^{1/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x\sim t^{\zeta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; ||&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim t^{\alpha/z}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;h(r,t) \sim r^{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;|| &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F, E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; || &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}})^2} \sim t^{2\theta} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We conclude that &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta  =\alpha/z,  \quad \zeta=1/z &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, the scaling relation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta =2 \zeta- 1 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a reincarnation of the Galilean invariance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\alpha +z =2&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3716</id>
		<title>L-3</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-3&amp;diff=3716"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T11:10:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; This lecture is dedicated to a classical model in disordered systems: the directed polymer in random media. It has been introduced to model vortices in superconductur or domain wall in magnetic film. We will focus here on the algorithms that identify the ground state or compute the free energy at temperature T, as well as, on the Cole-Hopf transformation that map this model on the KPZ equation.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Polymers, interfaces and manifolds in random media=&lt;br /&gt;
We consider the following potential energy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{pot}= \int dr \frac{1}{2}(\nabla h)^2 + V(h(r),r)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The first term represents the elasticity of the manifold and the second term is the quenched disorder, due to the impurities. In general, the medium is D-dimensional, the internal coordinate of the manifold is d-dimensional and the height filed is N-dimensional. Hence,the following equations always holds:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
D=d+N&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
In practice, we will study two cases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Directed Polymers (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=1+N &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Examples are vortices, fronts...&lt;br /&gt;
* Elastic interfaces (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N=1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; D=d+1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  Examples are domain walls...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Today we restrict to polymers. Note that they are directed because their configuration &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
h(r) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is uni-valuated. &lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to study the model using the following change of variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
h \to x, \quad r\to t&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Directed polymers=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dijkstra Algorithm and transfer matrix==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:SketchDPRM.png|thumb|left|Sketch of the discrete Directed Polymer model. At each time the polymer grows either one step left either one step right.  A random energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is associated at each node and the total energy is simply &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[x(\tau)] =\sum_{\tau=0}^t V(\tau,x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. ]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We introduce a lattice model for the directed polymer (see figure). In a companion notebook we provide the implementation of the powerful Dijkstra algorithm.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dijkstra allows to identify the minimal  energy among the exponential number of  configurations &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = \min_{x(\tau)} E[x(\tau)]. &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We are also interested in the ground state configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x_{\min}(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
For both quantities we expect scale invariance with two exponents  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; for the energy and for the roughness &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = c_\infty t + b_\infty t^{\theta}\chi,   \quad x_{\min}(t/2)) \sim  a_\infty t^{\zeta} \tilde \chi&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal exponents: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Both  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \theta, \zeta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are  Independent of the lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants, or the boudanry conditions.  Note that  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while for an interface &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \omega= d \theta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Non-universal constants: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty,b_\infty, a_\infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  are of  order 1 and depend on the  lattice, the disorder distribution, the elastic constants... However  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; c_\infty  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is independent on the boudanry conditions!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Universal distributions: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi, \tilde \chi &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are instead universal, but depends on the boundary condtions.  Starting from 2000 a magic connection has been revealed between this model and the smallest eigenvalues of random matrices. In particular I discuss two different boundary conditions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Droplet&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = x(\tau=t) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GUE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_2(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;) &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt; Flat&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt;: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; x(\tau=0) = 0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; while the other end &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  x(\tau=t)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is free. In this case, up to rescaling,  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed as the smallest eigenvalue of a GOE random matrix (Tracy Widom distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_1(\chi) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
===Entropy and scaling relation===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is useful to compute the entropy&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\text{Entropy}= \ln\binom{t}{\frac{t-x}{2}} \approx t \ln 2 -\frac{x^2}{t} +O(x^4)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
From which one could guess from dimensional analysis  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\theta=2 \zeta-1&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will see that this relation is actually exact.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Back to the continuum model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let us consider polymers &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
x(\tau) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  of length  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, starting in  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  and ending in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and at thermal equlibrium at   temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The partition function of the model writes as &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 +V(x(\tau),\tau)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For simplicity, we assume a white noise, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{V(x,\tau) V(x&#039;,\tau&#039;)} = D \delta(x-x&#039;) \delta(\tau-\tau&#039;) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Here, the partition function is written as a sum over all possible paths, corresponding to all possible polymer configurations that start at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and end at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, weighted by the appropriate Boltzmann factor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Polymer partition function and propagator of a quantum particle===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s perform the following change of variables: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\tau=i t&#039; &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We also identifies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\hbar&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t= -i t &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as the time.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z(x,\tilde t) =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(\tilde t)=x} {\cal D} x(t&#039;) \exp\left[ \frac{i}{\hbar} \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)\right]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Note that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  S[x]=  \int_0^{\tilde t} d t&#039; \frac{1}2(\partial_{t&#039;} x)^2 -V(x(t&#039;),t&#039;)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the classical action of a particle with kinetic energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  time dependent potential &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; V(x(\tau),\tau)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, evolving from time zero to time &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \tilde t&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
From the Feymann path integral formulation, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,\tilde t]&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  is the propagator of the quantum particle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In absence of disorder, one can find the propagator of the free particle, that, in the original variables, writes:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)=\frac{e^{-x^2/(2Tt)}}{\sqrt{2 \pi Tt}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Feynman-Kac formula==&lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s derive the Feyman Kac formula for  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Z(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in the general case:&lt;br /&gt;
* First, focus on free paths and introduce the following probability&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) \exp\left[- \frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2 \right] \delta\left(   \int_0^t d \tau V(x(\tau),\tau)-A \right)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Second, the moments generating function &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x ,t) = \int_{-\infty}^\infty d A e^{-p A} P[A,x,t] =\int_{x(0)=0}^{x(t)=x} {\cal D} x(\tau) e^{-\frac{1}{T} \int_0^t d \tau \frac{1}2(\partial_\tau x)^2  -p \int_0^t d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Third, the backward approach. Consider free paths evolving up to &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;t+dt&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and reaching &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t+dt} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle=  \left\langle e^{-p \int_0^{t} d \tau  V(x(\tau),\tau)}\right\rangle e^{-p V(x,t) d t } =[1 -p V(x,t) d t +\dots]\left\langle Z_p(x-\Delta x,t) \right\rangle_{\Delta x}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over all free paths, while  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \ldots \rangle_{\Delta x}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the average over the last jump, namely   &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x \rangle=0&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \langle \Delta x^2 \rangle=T d t  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* At the lowest order we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z_p(x,t+dt)= Z_p(x,t) +dt \left[ \frac{T}{2} \partial_x^2 Z_p -p V(x,t) Z_p \right] +O(dt^2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p=1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; we obtain the partition function is the solution of the Schrodinger-like equation:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\partial_t Z(x,t) =-  \hat H Z = - \left[ -\frac{T}{2}\frac{d^2 }{d x^2} + \frac{V(x,\tau)}{T}\right] Z(x,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t=0]=\delta(x)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Remarks===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 1:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This equation is a diffusive equation with multiplicative noise. Edwards Wilkinson is instead a diffusive equation with additive noise. The Cole Hopf transformation allows to map the diffusive equation with multiplicative noise in a non-linear equation with additive noise. We will apply this tranformation and have a surprise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt;Remark 2:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
This hamiltonian is time dependent because of the multiplicative noise &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;V(x,\tau)/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For a &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; time independent &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; hamiltonian, we can use the spectrum of the operator. In general we will have to parts: &lt;br /&gt;
* A discrete set of eigenvalues &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_n&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with the eigenstates &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_n(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
* A continuum part where the states &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\psi_E(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; have energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We define the density of states (DOS) &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, such that the number of states with energy in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E, E+dE)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\rho(E) dE &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
In this case &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z[x,t] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; can be written has the sum of two contributions:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Z[x,t] = \left( e^{- \hat H t} \right)_{0 \to x}= \sum_n \psi_n(0) \psi_n^*(x) e^{- E_n t} + \int_0^\infty dE \, \rho(E) \psi_E(0) \psi_E^*(x) e^{- E t}.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Exercise: free particle in 1D====&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 1: The spectrum&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
For a free particle there a no discrete eigenvalue, but only a continuum spectrum. In 1D the hamiltonian is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \hat H =-(T/2) \partial_x^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &lt;br /&gt;
Show that the continuum spectrum  has the form&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_k(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i k x} ,\quad \text{with}   \; E_k =\frac{ T k^2}{2}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a real number, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a positive number. Note that the states are delocalized on the entire real axis and they cannot be normalized to unit but you impose the Dirac delta normalization:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \psi_{k&#039;}^*(x)\psi_k(x) = \delta(k-k&#039;)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 2: the DOS &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
For a given energy &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; there are two states &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{-i \sqrt{2 E/T} x} ,\quad \text{and}  ,\quad \psi_E^{+}(x) =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi}} e^{i \sqrt{2 E/T} x}  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the definition of DOS &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E)=  \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dk \,\delta(E-E_k) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; ans show that for both &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \psi_E^{-}(x) , \psi_E^{-}(x)  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; you have  :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \rho(E) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 E T} }   &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; Step 3: the propagator &amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Use the spectral decomposition of the propagator to recover &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Z_{\text{free}}(x,t)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. &amp;lt;Strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
Tip:&amp;lt;/Strong&amp;gt; use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \int_{-\infty}^\infty \, dx \, \exp[-(a x^2 +b x)]= \sqrt{\pi/a} \exp[b^2/(4 a)]  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Cole Hopf Transformation==&lt;br /&gt;
Replacing &lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T =2 \nu &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;x = r &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;   Z(x,t) = \exp\left(\frac{\lambda}{2 \nu} h(r,t) \right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;- V(x,t)=\lambda  \eta(r,t) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
You get&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \partial_t h(r,t)= \nu \nabla^2 h(r,t)+ \frac{\lambda}{2} (\nabla h)^2 + \eta(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The KPZ equation! &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We can establish a KPZ/Directed polymer dictionary, valid in any dimension. Let us remark that the free energy of the polymer is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
F= - T \ln  Z(x,t) = \frac{-1}{\lambda} h(r,t)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At low temperature, the free energy approaches the ground state energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3703</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3703"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:44:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3702</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3702"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:43:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The SK model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3701</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3701"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:43:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Spin glass Transition */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The SK model]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Random energy model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3700</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3700"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:42:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Spin glass Transition */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The SK model]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Random energy model]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Detour: Extreme Value Statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3699</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3699"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:42:03Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson order parameter */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The SK model]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Random energy model]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Detour: Extreme Value Statistics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Density above the minimum]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Back to the REM]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Behavior in Different Phases:]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3698</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3698"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:39:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The SK model]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3688</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3688"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:31:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[The SK model]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3686</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3686"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T10:27:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3685</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3685"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:52:15Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson order parameter */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3684</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3684"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:50:45Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson order parameter */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3683</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3683"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:49:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Spin glass Transition */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
* Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3682</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3682"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:46:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3681</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3681"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:41:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3680</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3680"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:40:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math display=&amp;quot;block&amp;quot;&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3679</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3679"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:39:28Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3678</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3678"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:38:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson order parameter */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3677</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3677"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:37:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\displaystyle \overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3676</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3676"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:37:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math display=&amp;quot;inline&amp;quot;&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\displaystyle \overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3675</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3675"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:32:32Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson order parameter */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\displaystyle N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\displaystyle \overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3674</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3674"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:30:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\displaystyle N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3673</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3673"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:24:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson order parameter */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3672</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3672"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:14:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3671</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3671"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:12:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Edwards Anderson model */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3670</id>
		<title>L-1</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L-1&amp;diff=3670"/>
		<updated>2026-01-14T09:10:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Spin glass Transition */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass Transition =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We will consider two specific coupling distributions:&lt;br /&gt;
* Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Coin-toss couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, chosen with equal probability &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;1/2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The SK model ==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
This model presents a thermodynamic transition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Random energy model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Detour: Extreme Value Statistics =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; as independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The complementary probability of finding an energy larger than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039; is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;gt;(E) = \int_E^{+\infty} dx \, p(x) = 1 - P^&amp;lt;(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Our goal is to compute the cumulative distribution:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. To achieve this, we rely on three key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = \left(P^&amp;gt;(E)\right)^M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This relation is exact but depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. However, in the large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; limit, a universal behavior emerges.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  The typical value of the minimum energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, satisfies:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = \frac{1}{M}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;Third relation&#039;&#039;&#039;: For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M \to \infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = e^{M \log(1 - P^&amp;lt;(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; This is an approximation valid around the typical value of the minimum energy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A Concrete Example: The Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To understand how a universal scaling form emerges, let us analyze in detail the case of a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. Using integration by parts, we can write :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E \frac{dx}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma^2}} \, e^{-\frac{x^2}{2 \sigma^2}} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}} e^{-t}= \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} - \frac{1}{4\sqrt{\pi}} \int_{\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}^{\infty} \frac{dt}{t} e^{-t} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence we derive the following asymptotic expansion for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E \to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; :&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) \approx \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|} e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}} + O(\frac{e^{-\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2}}}{ |E|^2} ) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
It is convenient to introduce the function &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; defined as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P^&amp;lt;(E) = \exp(A(E)) \quad A_{\text{gauss}}(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi} |E|}{\sigma})+\ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Using this expansion and the second relation introduced earlier, show that for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the typical value of the minimum energy is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1- \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The Scaling Form in the Large &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; Limit ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the spirit of the central limit theorem, we look for a scaling form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; The constants &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; absorb the dependence on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according to a probability distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that does not depend on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Gaussian case, we start from the third relation introduced earlier and expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\left(-M P^&amp;lt;(E)\right) = \exp\left(-M e^{A(E)}\right) \sim \exp\left(-M e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E - a_M) + \ldots}\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
By setting &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M = E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}=-\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} + \ldots \quad \text{and} \quad b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)}= \frac{ \sigma}{\sqrt{2 \log M}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
we have&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\exp(A(a_M)) = \frac{1}{M} \quad \text{and} \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) \sim \exp\left(-\exp(\frac{E - a_M}{b_M})\right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = (E - a_M)/b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is distributed according an &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039; independent distribution. &lt;br /&gt;
It is possible to generalize the result and classify the scaling forms into three distinct universality classes:&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;   &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; decay faster than any power law.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: the  Gaussian case discussed here  or exponential distributions &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(E) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (-\infty, 0)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
**&#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \exp(z) \exp(-e^{z})&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;    &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies to distributions with finite lower bounds &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Uniform distribution in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;(E_0, E_1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; or &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E) = \exp(-(E-E_0)) \quad \text{with} \quad E\in (E_0,\infty)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) = \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
k z^{k-1} \exp(-z^k), &amp;amp; z \geq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;lt; 0. &lt;br /&gt;
\end{cases}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M=E_0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; controls the behavior of the distribution close to  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_0  &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; : &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) \sim (E-E_0)^k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Characteristics:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Applies when the tails of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit a power-law decay &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim E^{-\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; .  &lt;br /&gt;
*** Example: Pareto or Lévy distributions.  &lt;br /&gt;
** &#039;&#039;&#039;Scaling Form:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(z) =  \begin{cases} &lt;br /&gt;
\alpha |z|^{-(\alpha+1)} \exp(-|z|^{-\alpha}) , &amp;amp; z \leq 0, \\ &lt;br /&gt;
0, &amp;amp; z &amp;gt; 0. \end{cases} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These three classes, known as the &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel&#039;&#039;&#039;, &#039;&#039;&#039;Weibull&#039;&#039;&#039;, and &#039;&#039;&#039;Fréchet&#039;&#039;&#039; distributions, represent the universality of extreme value statistics and cover all possible asymptotic behaviors of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Density above the minimum==&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Definition of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Given a realization, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; n(x) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is defined as the number of random variables above the minimum &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  such that their value is smaller than &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} +x&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This quantity is a random variable, and we are interested in its average value:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \sum_k k \, \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The key relation for this quantity is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \text{Prob}[n(x) = k] = M \binom{M-1}{k}\int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) [P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)]^{k} P^&amp;gt;(E+x)^{M - k - 1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We use the following identity to sum over &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;k&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} k \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (A-B)\frac{d}{dA} \sum_{k=0}^{M-1} \binom{M-1}{k} (A-B)^k B^{M-1-k} = (M-1)(A-B)A^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
to arrive at the form:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M (M-1) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; p(E) \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
which simplifies further to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;gt;(E) - P^&amp;gt;(E+x)\right] \frac{d P^&amp;gt;(E)^{M-1}}{dE} = M \int_{-\infty}^\infty dE \; \left[P^&amp;lt;(E+x) - P^&amp;lt;(E)\right] \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Using asymptotic forms:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
So far, no approximations have been made. To proceed, we use &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; Q_{M-1}(E)\approx Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its asymptotics:&lt;br /&gt;
 &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;  \frac{d Q_{M-1}(E)}{dE} \; dE \sim  \exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M}) \exp(-\exp(\frac{E-a_M}{b_M})) \frac{dE}{b_M} = P(z) dz &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; z=(E-a_M)/b_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The contribution to the integral comes then form the region near &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P^&amp;lt;(E) \sim e^{A(a_M) +A&#039;(a_M) (E-a_M)} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We can then arrive to:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{n(x)} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) \int_{-\infty}^\infty dz \; e^{2z - e^z} = \left(e^{x/b_M}-1\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Back to the REM=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Returning now to the Random Energy Model (REM), recall that for each realization of disorder, we obtain &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2_M = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The minimum energy is a random variable belonging to the Gumbel universality class. From the results for &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; derived in the previous section, we have:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} =a_M +b_M z = - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\; N +\frac{1}{2} \frac{ \log (4 \pi \log2 N)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}   + \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable distributed according to the Gumbel distribution.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Key Observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: The leading term of the non-stochastic part, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;-\sqrt{2 \log 2} \; N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, is extensive, scaling linearly with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
: The fluctuations, represented by the term &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z/ \sqrt{2 \log 2} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, are independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Phase Transition in the Random Energy Model ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Random Energy Model (REM) exhibits two distinct phases:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: At high temperatures, the system is in a paramagnetic phase where the entropy is extensive, and the occupation probability of a configuration is approximately &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sim 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase:&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: Below a critical freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the system transitions into a glassy phase. In this phase, the entropy becomes subextensive (i.e., the extensive contribution vanishes), and only a few configurations are visited with finite, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent probabilities.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039; Calculating the Freezing Temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thanks to the computation of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{n(x)}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, we can identify the fingerprints of the glassy phase and calculate &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  &lt;br /&gt;
Let&#039;s compare the weight of the ground state against the weight of all other states:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
\frac{\sum_\alpha z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} \frac{z_\alpha}{z_{\alpha_{\min}}} = 1 + \sum_{\alpha \ne \alpha_{\min}} e^{-\beta(E_\alpha - E_\min)} \sim 1 + \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{d\overline{n(x)}}{dx} \, e^{-\beta x}= 1+ \int_0^\infty dx\, \frac{e^{x/b_M}}{b_M} \, e^{-\beta x} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Behavior in Different Phases:===&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;High-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;gt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the weight of the excited states diverges. This indicates that the ground state is not deep enough to render the system glassy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Low-Temperature Phase (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; T &amp;lt; T_f= b_M = 1/\sqrt{2 \log2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;):&#039;&#039;&#039;  &lt;br /&gt;
: In this regime, the integral is finite:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\int_0^\infty dx \, e^{ (1/b_M-\beta) x}/b_M = \frac{1}{\beta b_M-1}  = \frac{T}{T_f - T}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This result implies that below the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the weight of all excited states is of the same order as the weight of the ground state. Consequently, the ground state is occupied with a finite probability, reminiscent of Bose-Einstein condensation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==More general REM and systems in Finite dimensions==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In random energy models with i.i.d. random variables, the distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; determines the dependence of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; on &#039;&#039;M&#039;&#039;, and consequently their scaling with &#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;, the number of degrees of freedom. It is insightful to consider a more general case where an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; describes the fluctuations of the ground state energy:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim b_M^2 \propto N^{2\omega}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Three distinct scenarios emerge depending on the sign of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;lt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature vanishes with increasing system size, leading to the absence of a freezing transition. This scenario occurs in many low-dimensional systems, such as the Edwards-Anderson model in two dimensions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: A freezing transition is guaranteed. For the Random Energy Model discussed earlier, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f = 1/\sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. An important feature of this transition, as will be explored in the next section, is that condensation does not occur solely in the ground state but also involves a large (albeit not extensive) number of low-energy excitations.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* For &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The freezing temperature grows with the system size, resulting in only the glassy phase. The system condenses entirely into the ground state since the excited states are characterized by prohibitively high energies. This scenario, while less intricate than the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; case, corresponds to a glassy phase with a single deep ground state.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The extent to which these scenarios persist in real systems in finite dimensions remains an open question. In these systems, the fluctuations of the ground state energy are characterized by an exponent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{\left(E_{\min} - \overline{E_{\min}}\right)^2} \sim L^{2\theta}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear size of the system and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^D&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the number of degrees of freedom.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At finite temperatures, an analogous exponent can be defined by studying the fluctuations of the free energy, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F = E - T S&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. We will explore systems where the fluctuations of the ground state exhibit a positive and temperature-independent &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In such cases, only the glassy phase exists, aligning with the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\omega &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; scenario in REMs.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, in some systems, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\theta&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is positive at low temperatures but vanishes at high temperatures. This behavior defines a glass transition mechanism entirely distinct from those observed in mean-field models.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- == Exercise L1-A: More on extreme values ==&lt;br /&gt;
For a large set of iid random variables there are only three scaling form for the distribution of the minimum. In this lecture we studied the Gumbel case for fast decaying functions. The other two possibilities are&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Frechet case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a power law tail &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c/|E|^{\gamma+1} &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \gamma&amp;gt;0 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Weidbul case: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; for a bounded distribution with  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E) \sim c(E-E_0)^\gamma \; \text{when } E\to E_0^+ &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Compute &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M, b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in both cases as well as the limiting distribution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=References=&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Spin glass i-vii&#039;&#039;, P.W. Anderson,  Physics Today, 1988&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Spin glasses: Experimental signatures and salient outcome&#039;&#039;, E. Vincent and V. Dupuis, Frustrated Materials and Ferroic Glasses  31 (2018).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Theory of spin glasses&#039;&#039;, S. F. Edwards and P. W. Anderson, J. Phys. F: Met. Phys. 5 965 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Non-linear susceptibility in spin glasses and disordered systems&#039;&#039;, H. Bouchiat, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 9, 1811 (1997).&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;Solvable Model of a Spin-Glass&#039;&#039;, D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Physical Review Letters, 35, 1792 (1975).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Random-Energy Model: An Exactly Solvable Model of Disordered Systems&#039;&#039;, B.Derrida,Physical Review B, 24, 2613 (1980).&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;Extreme value statistics of correlated random variables: a pedagogical review&#039;&#039;, S. N. Majumdar, A. Pal, and G. Schehr, Physics Reports 840, 1-32, (2020).&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L1_ICTS&amp;diff=3655</id>
		<title>L1 ICTS</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L1_ICTS&amp;diff=3655"/>
		<updated>2026-01-13T19:55:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Back to REM */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass: Experiments and models =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following we will consider Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its simple definition, the Edwards–Anderson model is a very hard problem.&lt;br /&gt;
No analytical solution is known.&lt;br /&gt;
Numerical simulations are also difficult and limited to small system sizes.&lt;br /&gt;
This is due to frustration and to the resulting complex energy landscape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, this model already allows us to discuss two key features of disordered systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Self-averaging.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Do macroscopic observables become independent of the disorder realization in the thermodynamic limit?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Glassy behavior.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Does the system undergo a spin-glass transition even in the absence of geometrical order?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Self-averaging==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Random energy landascape ===&lt;br /&gt;
In a system with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; degrees of freedom, the number of configurations grows exponentially with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For simplicity, consider Ising spins that take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, located on a lattice of size &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; dimensions. In this case, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the number of configurations is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = 2^N = e^{N \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the presence of disorder, the energy associated with a given configuration becomes a random quantity. For instance, in the Edwards-Anderson model:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j, &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the sum runs over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of a given configuration is a random quantity because each system corresponds to a different realization of the disorder. In an experiment, this means that each of us has a different physical sample; in a numerical simulation, it means that each of us has generated a different set of couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate this, consider a single configuration, for example the one where all spins are up. The energy of this configuration is given by the sum of all the couplings between neighboring spins:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[\sigma_1=1,\sigma_2=1,\ldots] = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij}. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; Since the the couplings are random, the energy associated with this particular configuration is itself a Gaussian random variable, with zero mean and a variance proportional to the number of terms in the sum — that is, of order &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  The same reasoning applies to each of the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = 2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. So, in a disordered system, the entire energy landscape is random and sample-dependent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Deterministic observables ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A crucial question is whether the macroscopic properties measured on a given sample are themselves random or not. Our everyday experience suggests that they are not: materials like glass, ceramics, or bronze have well-defined, reproducible physical properties that can be reliably controlled for industrial applications.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a more mathematical point of view, it means that the free energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; F_N(\beta)=N f_N(\beta)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its derivatives (magnetization, specific heat, susceptibility, etc.), in the limit &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; N \to \infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, these random quantities concentrates around a well defined value. These observables are called self-averaging. This means that,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\lim_{N \to \infty} f_N (\beta)= \lim_{N \to \infty}  f_N^{\text{typ}}(\beta) =\lim_{N \to \infty}  \overline{f_N(\beta)} =f_\infty(\beta)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; f_N(\beta) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; becomes effectively deterministic and its sample-to sample fluctuations vanish in relative terms:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{\overline{f_N^2(\beta)}}{\overline{f_N(\beta)}^2}=1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Glass Transition: the Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Simpler models =&lt;br /&gt;
==SK Model==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Random Energy Model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Detour: Extreme Value Statistics=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the REM spectrum of  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We also define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M), \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statistical properties of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are derived using two key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently.&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = (1-P(E))^M= e^{M \log(1 - P(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P(E)\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
The first two steps are exact, but the resulting distribution depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In contrast, the last step is an approximation, valid when &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;MP(E)=O(1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 and thus, for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, when &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E)\ll 1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This second relation   allows to express the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in a scaling form: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The two parameters &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are deterministic and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-dependent, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable that is independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the exercise, we ask you to prove that for a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the cumulative can be written as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) = \exp(A(E)), \quad \text{with  } A(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log\!\!\left(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}\, |E|}{\sigma}\right)+\ldots, \quad \text{and } A&#039;(E)= -\frac{E}{\sigma^2} +\ldots \quad \text{when } E\to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Typical Minimum&#039;&#039;&#039;: From the first relation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = - \ln M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; one obtains, for large \(M\):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel scaling&#039;&#039;&#039;:  &lt;br /&gt;
From the second relation, the distribution of the minimum reads&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\!\bigl(-M P(E)\bigr) = \exp\!\bigl(-M e^{A(E)}\bigr).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Gaussian variables, the natural choice for the centering constant &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the typical minimum,&lt;br /&gt;
defined by&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(a_M) = -\log M, \qquad a_M \equiv E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We now expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; to first order around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E) \simeq A(a_M) + A&#039;(a_M)(E-a_M).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inserting this expansion into &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; gives&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Q_M(E) \sim \exp\!\left[-\exp\!\bigl(A&#039;(a_M)(E-a_M)\bigr)\right].&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This suggests introducing the scale&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)} = \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2\log M}},&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and the rescaled variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = \frac{E_{\min}-a_M}{b_M}.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the limit of large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the distribution of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; becomes &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent and is given by the Gumbel law:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(z) = \exp(z)\,\exp(-e^{z}).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Back to REM ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the REM, the variance of the energies scales with the system size as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
As a consequence, the minimum energy takes the form&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&lt;br /&gt;
= - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\, N&lt;br /&gt;
+ \frac{1}{2}\, \frac{\log (4 \pi N \log 2)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&lt;br /&gt;
+ \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}},&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a Gumbel-distributed random variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Key observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* At zero temperature (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\beta=\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), the ground-state energy is self-averaging.&lt;br /&gt;
  Its leading contribution is deterministic and extensive,&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_N(\beta=\infty)\sim -\sqrt{2 \log 2}\, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Sample-to-sample fluctuations are subextensive (&#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;-independent),&lt;br /&gt;
  with a finite standard deviation&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma = \sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
  We will later see that this scale coincides with the critical inverse temperature of the model.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L1_ICTS&amp;diff=3654</id>
		<title>L1 ICTS</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L1_ICTS&amp;diff=3654"/>
		<updated>2026-01-13T19:54:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Back to REM */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass: Experiments and models =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following we will consider Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its simple definition, the Edwards–Anderson model is a very hard problem.&lt;br /&gt;
No analytical solution is known.&lt;br /&gt;
Numerical simulations are also difficult and limited to small system sizes.&lt;br /&gt;
This is due to frustration and to the resulting complex energy landscape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, this model already allows us to discuss two key features of disordered systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Self-averaging.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Do macroscopic observables become independent of the disorder realization in the thermodynamic limit?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Glassy behavior.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Does the system undergo a spin-glass transition even in the absence of geometrical order?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Self-averaging==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Random energy landascape ===&lt;br /&gt;
In a system with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; degrees of freedom, the number of configurations grows exponentially with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For simplicity, consider Ising spins that take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, located on a lattice of size &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; dimensions. In this case, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the number of configurations is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = 2^N = e^{N \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the presence of disorder, the energy associated with a given configuration becomes a random quantity. For instance, in the Edwards-Anderson model:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j, &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the sum runs over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of a given configuration is a random quantity because each system corresponds to a different realization of the disorder. In an experiment, this means that each of us has a different physical sample; in a numerical simulation, it means that each of us has generated a different set of couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate this, consider a single configuration, for example the one where all spins are up. The energy of this configuration is given by the sum of all the couplings between neighboring spins:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[\sigma_1=1,\sigma_2=1,\ldots] = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij}. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; Since the the couplings are random, the energy associated with this particular configuration is itself a Gaussian random variable, with zero mean and a variance proportional to the number of terms in the sum — that is, of order &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  The same reasoning applies to each of the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = 2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. So, in a disordered system, the entire energy landscape is random and sample-dependent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Deterministic observables ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A crucial question is whether the macroscopic properties measured on a given sample are themselves random or not. Our everyday experience suggests that they are not: materials like glass, ceramics, or bronze have well-defined, reproducible physical properties that can be reliably controlled for industrial applications.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a more mathematical point of view, it means that the free energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; F_N(\beta)=N f_N(\beta)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its derivatives (magnetization, specific heat, susceptibility, etc.), in the limit &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; N \to \infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, these random quantities concentrates around a well defined value. These observables are called self-averaging. This means that,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\lim_{N \to \infty} f_N (\beta)= \lim_{N \to \infty}  f_N^{\text{typ}}(\beta) =\lim_{N \to \infty}  \overline{f_N(\beta)} =f_\infty(\beta)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; f_N(\beta) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; becomes effectively deterministic and its sample-to sample fluctuations vanish in relative terms:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{\overline{f_N^2(\beta)}}{\overline{f_N(\beta)}^2}=1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Glass Transition: the Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Simpler models =&lt;br /&gt;
==SK Model==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Random Energy Model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Detour: Extreme Value Statistics=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the REM spectrum of  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We also define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M), \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statistical properties of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are derived using two key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently.&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = (1-P(E))^M= e^{M \log(1 - P(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P(E)\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
The first two steps are exact, but the resulting distribution depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In contrast, the last step is an approximation, valid when &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;MP(E)=O(1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 and thus, for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, when &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E)\ll 1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This second relation   allows to express the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in a scaling form: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The two parameters &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are deterministic and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-dependent, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable that is independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the exercise, we ask you to prove that for a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the cumulative can be written as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) = \exp(A(E)), \quad \text{with  } A(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log\!\!\left(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}\, |E|}{\sigma}\right)+\ldots, \quad \text{and } A&#039;(E)= -\frac{E}{\sigma^2} +\ldots \quad \text{when } E\to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Typical Minimum&#039;&#039;&#039;: From the first relation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = - \ln M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; one obtains, for large \(M\):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel scaling&#039;&#039;&#039;:  &lt;br /&gt;
From the second relation, the distribution of the minimum reads&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\!\bigl(-M P(E)\bigr) = \exp\!\bigl(-M e^{A(E)}\bigr).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Gaussian variables, the natural choice for the centering constant &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the typical minimum,&lt;br /&gt;
defined by&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(a_M) = -\log M, \qquad a_M \equiv E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We now expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; to first order around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E) \simeq A(a_M) + A&#039;(a_M)(E-a_M).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inserting this expansion into &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; gives&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Q_M(E) \sim \exp\!\left[-\exp\!\bigl(A&#039;(a_M)(E-a_M)\bigr)\right].&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This suggests introducing the scale&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)} = \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2\log M}},&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and the rescaled variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = \frac{E_{\min}-a_M}{b_M}.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the limit of large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the distribution of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; becomes &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent and is given by the Gumbel law:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(z) = \exp(z)\,\exp(-e^{z}).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Back to REM ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the REM, the variance of the energies scales with the system size as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
As a consequence, the minimum energy takes the form&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L1_ICTS&amp;diff=3653</id>
		<title>L1 ICTS</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=L1_ICTS&amp;diff=3653"/>
		<updated>2026-01-13T19:53:37Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: /* Back to REM */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;Goal: &amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; Spin glass transition. From the experiments with the anomaly on the magnetic susceptibility to order parameter of the transition. We will discuss the arguments linked to  extreme value statistics&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Spin glass: Experiments and models =&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Spin glass behavior was first observed in experiments with non-magnetic metals (such as Cu, Fe, Au, etc.) doped with a small percentage of magnetic impurities, typically Mn. At low doping levels, the magnetic moments of Mn atoms interact via the Ruderman–Kittel–Kasuya–Yosida (RKKY) interaction. This interaction has a random sign due to the random spatial distribution of Mn atoms within the non-magnetic metal. A freezing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, separates the high-temperature paramagnetic phase from the low-temperature spin glass phase:&lt;br /&gt;
*Above &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: The magnetic susceptibility follows the standard Curie law, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi(T) \sim 1/T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
* Below &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;: Strong metastability emerges, leading to differences between the field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) protocols:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(i) In the ZFC protocol, the susceptibility decreases with decreasing temperature, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(ii)In the FC protocol, the susceptibility freezes at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, remaining constant at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi_{FC}(T&amp;lt;T_f) = \chi(T_f)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Understanding whether these data reveal a true thermodynamic transition and determining the nature of this new &amp;quot;glassy&amp;quot; phase remains an open challenge to this day. However, in the early 1980s, spin glass models were successfully solved within the mean-field approximation. In this limit, it is possible to determine the phase diagram and demonstrate the existence of a glassy phase where the entropy vanishes at a finite temperature. Furthermore, a condensation of the Gibbs measure onto a few configurations is observed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Edwards Anderson model==&lt;br /&gt;
The first significant theoretical attempt to describe spin glasses is the Edwards-Anderson model. For simplicity, we will consider the Ising version of this model.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ising spins take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and are located on a lattice with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; sites, indexed by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;i = 1, 2, \ldots, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of the system is expressed as a sum over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edwards and Anderson proposed studying this model with couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; that are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables with a zero mean.&lt;br /&gt;
The coupling distribution is denoted by &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the average over the couplings, referred to as the disorder average, is indicated by an overline:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \overline{J} \equiv \int dJ \, J \, \pi(J) = 0. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following we will consider Gaussian couplings: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(J) = \exp\left(-J^2 / 2\right) / \sqrt{2 \pi}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite its simple definition, the Edwards–Anderson model is a very hard problem.&lt;br /&gt;
No analytical solution is known.&lt;br /&gt;
Numerical simulations are also difficult and limited to small system sizes.&lt;br /&gt;
This is due to frustration and to the resulting complex energy landscape.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nevertheless, this model already allows us to discuss two key features of disordered systems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Self-averaging.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Do macroscopic observables become independent of the disorder realization in the thermodynamic limit?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Glassy behavior.&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
Does the system undergo a spin-glass transition even in the absence of geometrical order?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Self-averaging==&lt;br /&gt;
=== Random energy landascape ===&lt;br /&gt;
In a system with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; degrees of freedom, the number of configurations grows exponentially with &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. For simplicity, consider Ising spins that take two values, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_i = \pm 1&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, located on a lattice of size &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;L&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; dimensions. In this case, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N = L^d&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the number of configurations is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = 2^N = e^{N \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the presence of disorder, the energy associated with a given configuration becomes a random quantity. For instance, in the Edwards-Anderson model:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij} \sigma_i \sigma_j, &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where the sum runs over nearest neighbors &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\langle i, j \rangle&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, and the couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian random variables with zero mean and unit variance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The energy of a given configuration is a random quantity because each system corresponds to a different realization of the disorder. In an experiment, this means that each of us has a different physical sample; in a numerical simulation, it means that each of us has generated a different set of couplings &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;J_{ij}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To illustrate this, consider a single configuration, for example the one where all spins are up. The energy of this configuration is given by the sum of all the couplings between neighboring spins:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E[\sigma_1=1,\sigma_2=1,\ldots] = - \sum_{\langle i, j \rangle} J_{ij}. &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; Since the the couplings are random, the energy associated with this particular configuration is itself a Gaussian random variable, with zero mean and a variance proportional to the number of terms in the sum — that is, of order &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.  The same reasoning applies to each of the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = 2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. So, in a disordered system, the entire energy landscape is random and sample-dependent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Deterministic observables ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A crucial question is whether the macroscopic properties measured on a given sample are themselves random or not. Our everyday experience suggests that they are not: materials like glass, ceramics, or bronze have well-defined, reproducible physical properties that can be reliably controlled for industrial applications.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From a more mathematical point of view, it means that the free energy  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; F_N(\beta)=N f_N(\beta)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and its derivatives (magnetization, specific heat, susceptibility, etc.), in the limit &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; N \to \infty &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, these random quantities concentrates around a well defined value. These observables are called self-averaging. This means that,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\lim_{N \to \infty} f_N (\beta)= \lim_{N \to \infty}  f_N^{\text{typ}}(\beta) =\lim_{N \to \infty}  \overline{f_N(\beta)} =f_\infty(\beta)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Hence &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; f_N(\beta) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; becomes effectively deterministic and its sample-to sample fluctuations vanish in relative terms:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{\overline{f_N^2(\beta)}}{\overline{f_N(\beta)}^2}=1.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
== Glass Transition: the Edwards Anderson order parameter==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\overline{J} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the model does not exhibit spatial magnetic order, such as ferromagnetic or antiferromagnetic order. Instead, the idea is to distinguish between two phases:&lt;br /&gt;
* Paramagnetic phase: Configurations are explored with all possible spin orientations.&lt;br /&gt;
* Spin glass phase: Spin orientations are random but frozen (i.e., immobile).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The glass phase is characterized by long-range correlations in time, despite the absence of long-range correlations in space. The order parameter for this phase is:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; q_{EA} = \lim_{t \to \infty} \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t), &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; measures the overlap of the spin configuration with itself after a long time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the paramagnetic phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} = 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, while in the spin glass phase, &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA} &amp;gt; 0&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This raises the question of whether the transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is truly thermodynamic in nature. Indeed, in the definition of the Edwards-Anderson (EA) parameter, time seems to play a role, and the magnetic susceptibility does not diverge at the freezing temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
The divergence of the magnetic susceptibility in ferromagnets is due to the fact that the magnetization &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M = \sum_i \sigma_i&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; serves as the order parameter, distinguishing the ordered and disordered phases. However, in the spin glass model, magnetization is zero in both phases and the order parameter  is &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;q_{EA}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It can be shown that the associated susceptibility corresponds to the nonlinear susceptibility:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \frac{M}{H} = \chi + a_3 H^2 + a_5 H^4 + \ldots &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\chi&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the linear susceptibility, and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3, a_5, \ldots&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are higher-order coefficients. Experiments have demonstrated that &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_3&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_5&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; exhibit singular behavior, providing experimental evidence for the existence of a thermodynamic transition at &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;T_f&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
= Simpler models =&lt;br /&gt;
==SK Model==&lt;br /&gt;
Sherrington and Kirkpatrik considered the fully connected version of the model with Gaussian couplings:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 E= - \sum_{i,j} \frac{J_{ij}}{ \sqrt{N}} \sigma_i \sigma_j&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
At the inverse temperature &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 \beta &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the partion function of the model is&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 Z=  \sum_{\alpha=1}^{2^N} z_{\alpha}, \quad \text{with}\; z_{\alpha}= e^{-\beta E_\alpha} &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Here &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; E_\alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the energy associated to the configuration  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt; \alpha &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Random Energy Model==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The solution of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model is challenging. To make progress, we first study the Random Energy Model (REM), introduced by B. Derrida. This model simplifies the problem by neglecting correlations between the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations and assuming that the energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\alpha}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) random variables. Here, &amp;quot;independent&amp;quot; means that the energy of one configuration does not influence the energy of another, e.g., a configuration identical to the previous one except for a spin flip. &amp;quot;Identically distributed&amp;quot; indicates that all configurations follow the same probability distribution.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
    &#039;&#039;&#039;Energy Distribution:&#039;&#039;&#039; Show that the energy distribution is given by: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; p(E_\alpha) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \pi \sigma_M^2}} \exp\left(-\frac{E_{\alpha}^2}{2 \sigma_M^2}\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; and determine that: &amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = N = \frac{\log M}{\log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the following, we present the original solution of the model. Here, we characterize the glassy phase by analyzing the statistical properties of the smallest energy values among the &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M=2^N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; configurations. To address this, it is necessary to make a brief detour into the theory of extreme value statistics for i.i.d. random variables.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=Detour: Extreme Value Statistics=&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the REM spectrum of  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; energies &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_1, \dots, E_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; drawn from a distribution &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. It is useful to introduce the cumulative probability of finding an energy smaller than &#039;&#039;E&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(E) = \int_{-\infty}^E dx \, p(x)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
We also define:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = \min(E_1, \dots, E_M), \quad Q_M(E) \equiv \text{Prob}(E_{\min} &amp;gt; E) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The statistical properties of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are derived using two key relations:&lt;br /&gt;
*    &#039;&#039;&#039;First relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:  &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;P(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = 1/M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
This is an estimation of the typical value of the minimum. It is a crucial relation that will be used frequently.&lt;br /&gt;
*  &#039;&#039;&#039;Second relation&#039;&#039;&#039;:&lt;br /&gt;
    &amp;lt;center&amp;gt; &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) = (1-P(E))^M= e^{M \log(1 - P(E))} \sim \exp\left(-M P(E)\right) &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; &amp;lt;/center&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
The first two steps are exact, but the resulting distribution depends on &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and the precise form of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;p(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. In contrast, the last step is an approximation, valid when &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;MP(E)=O(1)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 and thus, for large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, when &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E)\ll 1 &amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. This second relation   allows to express the random variable &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; in a scaling form: &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;. The two parameters &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; are deterministic and &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-dependent, while &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a random variable that is independent of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gaussian Case ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the exercise, we ask you to prove that for a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma^2&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the cumulative can be written as:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt; P(E) = \exp(A(E)), \quad \text{with  } A(E)= -\frac{E^2}{2 \sigma^2} - \log\!\!\left(\frac{\sqrt{2 \pi}\, |E|}{\sigma}\right)+\ldots, \quad \text{and } A&#039;(E)= -\frac{E}{\sigma^2} +\ldots \quad \text{when } E\to -\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Typical Minimum&#039;&#039;&#039;: From the first relation &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}) = - \ln M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; one obtains, for large \(M\):&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;E_{\min}^{\text{typ}} = -\sigma \sqrt{2 \log M} \left( 1 - \frac{1}{4} \frac{\log (4 \pi \log M)}{\log M} + \ldots \right)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* &#039;&#039;&#039;Gumbel scaling&#039;&#039;&#039;:  &lt;br /&gt;
From the second relation, the distribution of the minimum reads&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E) \sim \exp\!\bigl(-M P(E)\bigr) = \exp\!\bigl(-M e^{A(E)}\bigr).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For Gaussian variables, the natural choice for the centering constant &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is the typical minimum,&lt;br /&gt;
defined by&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(a_M) = -\log M, \qquad a_M \equiv E_{\min}^{\text{typ}}.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We now expand &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; to first order around &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;a_M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;A(E) \simeq A(a_M) + A&#039;(a_M)(E-a_M).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Inserting this expansion into &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;Q_M(E)&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; gives&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Q_M(E) \sim \exp\!\left[-\exp\!\bigl(A&#039;(a_M)(E-a_M)\bigr)\right].&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This suggests introducing the scale&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;b_M = \frac{1}{A&#039;(a_M)} = \frac{\sigma}{\sqrt{2\log M}},&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and the rescaled variable&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z = \frac{E_{\min}-a_M}{b_M}.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the limit of large &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;, the distribution of &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; becomes &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;-independent and is given by the Gumbel law:&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\pi(z) = \exp(z)\,\exp(-e^{z}).&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Back to REM ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the REM, the variance of the energies scales with the system size as&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma_M^2 = \frac{\log M}{\log 2} = N.&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
As a consequence, the minimum energy takes the form&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
E_{\min} = a_M + b_M z&lt;br /&gt;
= - \sqrt{2 \log 2}\, N&lt;br /&gt;
+ \frac{1}{2}\, \frac{\log (4 \pi N \log 2)}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}&lt;br /&gt;
+ \frac{z}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}},&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/center&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
where &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;z&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt; is a Gumbel-distributed random variable.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&#039;&#039;&#039;Key observations:&#039;&#039;&#039;&lt;br /&gt;
* At zero temperature (&amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\beta=\infty&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;), the ground-state energy is self-averaging.&lt;br /&gt;
  Its leading contribution is deterministic and extensive,&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;F_N(\beta=\infty)\sim -\sqrt{2 \log 2}\, N&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Sample-to-sample fluctuations are subextensive (&#039;&#039;N&#039;&#039;-independent),&lt;br /&gt;
  with a finite standard deviation&lt;br /&gt;
  &amp;lt;math&amp;gt;\sigma = \sqrt{2 \log 2}&amp;lt;/math&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
  We will later see that this scale coincides with the critical inverse temperature of the model.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=2</id>
		<title>Main Page</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.lptms.universite-paris-saclay.fr//wikids/index.php?title=Main_Page&amp;diff=2"/>
		<updated>2023-08-14T10:51:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Lptmswikids: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;lt;strong&amp;gt;MediaWiki has been installed.&amp;lt;/strong&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consult the [//meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents User&#039;s Guide] for information on using the wiki software.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Getting started ==&lt;br /&gt;
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Configuration_settings Configuration settings list]&lt;br /&gt;
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:FAQ MediaWiki FAQ]&lt;br /&gt;
* [https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-announce MediaWiki release mailing list]&lt;br /&gt;
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Localisation#Translation_resources Localise MediaWiki for your language]&lt;br /&gt;
* [//www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Manual:Combating_spam Learn how to combat spam on your wiki]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Lptmswikids</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>