|
|
(79 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| <strong>Goal: </strong> | | <strong>Goal: </strong> use the replica method to compute the quenched free energy of a prototypical mean-field model of glasses, the spherical <math>p</math>-spin model. <br> |
| In this set of problems, we compute the free energy of the spherical <math>p</math>-spin model in the Replica Symmetric (RS) framework, and in the 1-step Replica Symmetry Broken (1-RSB) framework.
| | <strong>Techniques: </strong> replica trick, Gaussian integrals, saddle point calculations. |
| <br> | | <br> |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| | == Quenched vs annealed, and the replica trick== |
| | In Problems 1 and 2, we defined the <ins>quenched free energy</ins> as the physically relevant quantity controlling the scaling of the typical value of the partition function <math>Z </math>, which means: |
| | <center><math> |
| | f= -\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{\beta N} \overline{ \log Z}. |
| | </math></center> |
|
| |
|
| === The order parameters: overlaps, and their meaning === | | The <ins>annealed free energy</ins> <math>f_{\text{a}} </math> instead controls the scaling of the average value of <math>Z </math>. It is defined by |
| | <center><math> |
| | f_{\text{a}} = -\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{\beta N} \log \overline{Z}. |
| | </math></center> |
| | These formulas differ by the order in which the logarithm and the average over disorder are taken. Computing the average of the logarithm is in general a hard problem, which one can address by using a smart representation of the logarithm, that goes under the name of <ins>replica trick</ins>: |
| | <center><math> |
| | \log x= \lim_{n \to 0} \frac{x^n-1}{n} |
| | </math></center> |
| | which can be easily shown to be true by Taylor expanding <math>x^n= e^{n \log x}= 1+ n\log x+ O(n^2) </math>. Applying this to the average of the partition function, we see that |
| | <center><math> |
| | f= -\lim_{N \to \infty} \lim_{n \to 0}\frac{1}{\beta N } \frac{\overline{Z^n}-1}{n}. |
| | </math></center> |
| | Therefore, to compute the quenched free-energy we need to compute the moments <math>{\overline{Z^n}}</math> and then take the limit <math>n \to 0</math>. The calculations in the following Problems rely on this replica trick. The annealed one only requires to do the calculation with <math>n=1</math>. |
| | <br><br> |
|
| |
|
| | | == Problems== |
| <ul> | | In this and the following set of problems, we analyse a mean-field model that is slightly more complicated than the REM: the spherical <math>p</math>-spin model. In the spherical <math>p</math>-spin model the configurations <math> \vec{\sigma}=(\sigma_1, \cdots, \sigma_N) </math> satisfy the spherical constraint <math> \sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i^2=N </math>, and the energy associated to each configuration is |
| <li> '''Thermodynamics and dynamics.''' Recall: a system equilibrates dynamically at temperature <math> T </math> whenever at sufficiently large timescales it visits configurations, with its dynamics, with the frequency predicted by the Boltzmann distribution at temperature <math> T </math>. </li><br> | |
| | |
| <li> '''Order parameter, ergodicity-breaking, pure states: the ferromagnet.''' The order parameter for ferromagnets is the magnetization. It is defined as:
| |
| <center> | | <center> |
| <math> | | <math> |
| m=\lim_{h \to 0} \lim_{N \to \infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \overline{\langle S_i \rangle_{ h}}
| | E(\vec{\sigma}) =\sum_{1 \leq i_1 <i_2 <\cdots i_p \leq N} J_{i_1 \,i_2 \cdots i_p} \sigma_{i_1} \sigma_{i_2} \cdots \sigma_{i_p}, |
| </math> | | </math></center> |
| </center> | | where the coupling constants <math>J_{i_1 \,i_2 \cdots i_p}</math> are independent random variables with Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance <math> p!/ N^{p-1},</math> and <math> p \geq 3</math> is an integer. |
| where <math>\langle \cdot \rangle_{h} </math> is the Boltzmann average in presence of a small magnetic field, and the average over the disorder can be neglected because this quantity is self-averaging. Notice the order of limits in the definition: in a finite system, the magnetization vanishes when the field is switched off. If the infinite size limit is taken before, though, the magnetization persists.<br> | |
|
| |
|
| | <br> |
|
| |
|
| A non-zero magnetisation is also connected to <ins>ergodicity breaking</ins>, which is a dynamical concept: when a small field <math>h </math> is added, the system, following equilibrium dynamics, explores only a sub-part of the phase space, which corresponds to a finite magnetization in the direction of the field. When ergodicity is broken, the Boltzmann measure clusters into <ins>pure states</ins> (labelled by <math>\alpha </math>) with Gibbs weight <math>\omega_\alpha </math>, meaning that one can re-write the thermal averages <math>\langle \cdot \rangle </math> of any observable <math>A </math> as
| | === Problem 3.1: correlations, p-spin vs REM === |
| <center> | | <br> |
| <math> | | At variance with the REM, in the spherical <math>p</math>-spin the energies at different configurations are correlated. Show that |
| \langle A \rangle = \sum_{\alpha} \omega_\alpha \langle A \rangle_\alpha, \quad \quad \quad \omega_\alpha= \frac{Z_\alpha}{Z}, \quad \quad \quad Z_\alpha=\int_{\vec{\sigma} \in \text{ state } \alpha} d \vec{\sigma} e^{-\beta E[\vec{\sigma}]}= \langle e^{-\beta E [\vec{\sigma}]} \rangle_\alpha | | <center><math> |
| </math> | | \overline{E(\vec{\sigma}) E(\vec{\sigma}')}= N \, q(\vec{\sigma}, \vec{\sigma}')^p + o(N) , \quad \quad \text{where} \quad \quad q(\vec{\sigma}, \vec{\sigma}')= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i \sigma'_i </math></center> |
| </center> | | is the overlap between the two configurations. Why can we say that for <math>p \to \infty </math> this model converges with the REM? |
| In the ferromagnet there are two pure states, <math>\alpha= \pm 1 </math>, that correspond to positive and negative magnetization. The free energy barrier that one has to overcome to go from one state to the other diverges when <math> N \to \infty </math>, and thus the system is dynamically trapped only in one state.
| | <br> |
| </li><br>
| |
|
| |
|
| | === Problem 3.2: the annealed free energy ---> DO IT YOURSELF! === |
| | As a preliminary exercise, we compute the annealed free energy of the spherical <math>p</math>-spin model. |
|
| |
|
| <li> '''Order parameter, ergodicity-breaking, pure states: the glass.''' In Lecture 1, we have introduced the <ins>Edwards-Anderson order parameter</ins> as: | | <ol> |
| <center> <math> | | <li> <em> Energy contribution.</em> Show that computing <math>\overline{Z}</math> boils down to computing the average <math> \overline{e^{-\beta J_{i_1 \, \cdots i_p} \sigma_{i_1} \cdots \sigma_{i_p}}}</math>, which is a Gaussian integral. Compute this average. <br> |
| q_{EA}= \lim_{t\to \infty} \lim_{N\to \infty} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i} S_i(0) S_i(t)
| | Hint: if <math>X</math> is a centered Gaussian variable with variance <math>v</math>, then <math>\overline{e^{\alpha X}}=e^{\frac{\alpha^2 v}{2} }</math>. |
| </math></center> | | </li><br> |
| This measures the autocorrelation between the configuration of the same spin at <math>t=0</math> and that at infinitely larger time. A non-zero value of <math> q_{EA} </math> is again an indication of ergodicity breaking: if there was not ergodicity breaking, the system would be able to visit dynamical all configurations according to the Bolzmann measure, decorrelating to the initial condition. The fact that <math> q_{EA} >0</math> indicates that the system, even at later times, is constrained to visit configurations that are not too different from the initial ones: this is because it explores only one of the available pure states! The difference with the ferromagnets is that in models like the spherical <math>p</math>-spin, there are not just two but many different pure states. <br>
| |
|
| |
|
| The quantity <math>q_{EA}</math> measures the overlap between configurations belonging to the <ins>same pure state</ins>, that one expects to be the same for all states. In a thermodynamics formalism, it can be re-written as
| |
| <center>
| |
| <math>
| |
| q_{EA}= q_{\alpha \alpha}= \lim_{N \to \infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_i \langle S_i \rangle_\alpha \langle S_i \rangle_\alpha
| |
| </math>
| |
| </center>
| |
| Notice that to be precise, in analogy with the magnetization, we should write
| |
| <center>
| |
| <math>
| |
| q_{EA}=\lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\lim_{N \to \infty}\frac{1}{N}\sum_i \langle S_i^1 \, S_i^2 \rangle_\epsilon,
| |
| </math>
| |
| </center>
| |
| where <math> \vec{S}^1, \vec{S}^2 </math> are two copies of the system, and the average is with respect to a tilted Boltzmann measure which contains a small coupling <math> \epsilon </math> between them. The coupling is so weak that it only forces the configurations to fall in the same pure state, but a part from this it leaves them independent. This small coupling plays the same role of the infinitesimal magnetic fields in the ferromagnet. Notice also that this non-zero in a spin-glass phase, but it is also different from zero in unfrustrated ferromagnets: in the low-T phase of an Ising model, it equals to <math>m^2</math>, where <math>m</math> is the magnetization. </li><br>
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| <li> '''Replica formalism: where is this info encoded?''' One can generalize this and consider the overlap between configurations in different pure states, and the <ins>overlap distribution</ins>: | | <li> <em> Entropy contribution.</em> The volume of a sphere <math>\mathcal{S}_N</math> of radius <math>\sqrt{N}</math> in dimension <math>N</math> is given by <math>N^{\frac{N}{2}} \pi^{\frac{N}{2}}/\left(\frac{N}{2}\right)!</math>. Use the large-<math>N</math> asymptotic of this to conclude the calculation of the annealed free energy: |
| <center> | | <center><math> |
| <math> | | f_{\text{a}}= - \frac{1}{\beta}\left( \frac{\beta^2}{2}+ \frac{1}{2}\log (2 \pi e)\right). |
| q_{\alpha \beta}= \frac{1}{N}\sum_i \langle S_i \rangle_\alpha \langle S_i \rangle_\beta, \quad \quad \quad {P}(q)= \sum_{\alpha, \beta} \omega_\alpha\, \omega_\beta\, \delta(q- q_{\alpha \beta}).
| | </math></center> |
| </math> | | This result is only slightly different with respect to the annealed free-energy of the REM: can you identify the source of this difference? </li> |
| </center> | | </ol> |
| The disorder average of quantities can be computed within the replica formalism, and one finds:
| |
| <center> | |
| <math> | |
| \overline{P}(q)=\lim_{n \to 0} \frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{a>b}\delta \left(q- Q_{ab}^{SP}\right),\quad \quad \quad q_{EA}= \max \left\{ Q_{a \neq b}^{SP} \right\}
| |
| </math> | |
| </center>
| |
| where <math> Q_{ab}^{SP}</math> are the saddle point values of the overlap matrix introduced in Problem 2.2. The solution of the saddle point equations for the overlap matrix <math> Q</math> thus contain the information on whether spin glass order emerges, which corresponds to having a non-trivial distribution <math> \overline{P}(q)</math>. This distribution measures the probability that two copies of the system, equilibrating in the same disordered environment, end up having overlap <math>q</math>. In the Ising case, a low temperature one has <math> q_{\alpha \alpha}=m^2</math> and <math> q_{\alpha \neq \beta}=-m^2</math>, and thus <math> \overline{P}(q)</math> has two peaks at <math> \pm m^2</math>. </li>
| |
| </ul> | |
| <br> | | <br> |
|
| |
|
| === Problem 3.1: the RS (Replica Symmetric) calculation=== | | === Problem 3.3: the replica trick and the quenched free energy === |
| | In this Problem, we set up the replica calculation of the quenched free energy. This will be done in 3 steps, that are general in each calculation of this type. |
|
| |
|
| We go back to the saddle point equations for the spherical <math>p</math>-spin model derived in the previous problems. Let us consider the simplest possible ansatz for the structure of the matrix Q, that is the Replica Symmetric (RS) ansatz:
| | <ol> |
| | <li> <em> Step 1: average over the disorder.</em> By using the same Gaussian integration discussed above, show that the <math>n</math>-th moment of the partition function is |
|
| |
|
| <center> | | <center> |
| <math> | | <math>\overline{Z^n}= \int_{S_N} \prod_{a=1}^n d \vec{\sigma}^a e^{\frac{\beta^2}{2} \sum_{a,b=1}^n \left[q({\vec{\sigma}^a, \vec{\sigma}^b})\right]^p}</math></center> |
| Q=\begin{pmatrix}
| |
| 1 & q_0 &q_0 \cdots& q_0\\ | |
| q_0 & 1 &q_0 \cdots &q_0\\
| |
| &\cdots& &\\
| |
| q_0 & q_0 &q_0 \cdots &1
| |
| \end{pmatrix} | |
| </math> | |
| </center> | |
| Under this assumption, there is a unique saddle point variable, that is <math>q_0</math>. We denote with <math>q_0^{SP}</math> its value at the saddle point.
| |
| | |
|
| |
|
| <ol>
| | Justify why averaging over the disorder induces a coupling between the replicas. |
| <li><em> RS overlap distribution. </em>
| |
| Under this assumption, what is the overlap distribution <math>\overline{P}(q)</math> and what is <math>q_{EA}</math>? In which sense the RS ansatz corresponds to assuming the existence of a unique pure state?
| |
| </li> | | </li> |
| </ol> | | </ol> |
Line 92: |
Line 75: |
|
| |
|
| <ol start="2"> | | <ol start="2"> |
| <li> <em> Self-consistent equations. </em> | | <li><em> Step 2: identify the order parameter.</em> Using the identity <math> 1=\int dq_{ab} \delta \left( q({\vec{\sigma}^a, \vec{\sigma}^b})- q_{ab}\right) </math>, show that <math>\overline{Z^n}</math> can be rewritten as an integral over <math>n(n-1)/2</math> variables only, as: |
| Check that the inverse of the overlap matrix is
| | |
| <center> | | <center> |
| | <math>\overline{Z^n}= \int \prod_{a<b} d q_{ab} e^{\frac{N\beta^2}{2} \sum_{a,b=1}^n q_{ab}^p+ \frac{Nn}{2} \log (2 \pi e) + \frac{N}{2} \log \det Q+ o(N)} \equiv \int \prod_{a<b} d q_{ab} e^{N \mathcal{A}[Q]+ o(N)}, \quad \quad Q_{ab} \equiv \begin{cases} |
| | &q_{ab} \text{ if } a <b\\ |
| | &1 \text{ if } a =b\\ |
| | &q_{ba}\text{ if } a >b |
| | \end{cases}</math></center> |
| | In the derivation, you can use the fact that |
| <math> | | <math> |
| Q^{-1}=\begin{pmatrix}
| | \int_{S_N} \prod_{a=1}^n d \vec{\sigma}^a \, \prod_{a<b}\delta \left(q({\vec{\sigma}^a, \vec{\sigma}^b})- q_{ab} \right)= e^{N S[Q]+ o(N)}</math>, where <math> S[Q]= n \log (2 \pi e)/2 + (1/2)\log \det Q</math>. The matrix <math> Q</math> is an order parameter: explain the analogy with the magnetisation in the mean-field solution of the Ising model. |
| \alpha & \beta &\beta \cdots& \beta\\ | | |
| \beta & \alpha &\beta \cdots &\beta\\
| |
| &\cdots& &\\
| |
| \beta & \beta &\beta \cdots &\alpha
| |
| \end{pmatrix}
| |
| \quad | |
| \quad | |
| \text{with} | |
| \quad | |
| \alpha= \frac{1+ (n-2)q_0}{1+ (n-2)q_0- (n-1)q_0^2} | |
| \quad
| |
| \text{and}
| |
| \quad | |
| \beta=\frac{-q_0}{1+ (n-2)q_0- (n-1)q_0^2}
| |
| </math> | |
| </center>
| |
| Compute the saddle point equation for <math>q_0</math> in the limit <math>n \to 0</math>, and show that this equation admits always the solution <math>q_0= 0</math>: why is this called the <em>paramagnetic</em> solution?
| |
| </li> | | </li> |
| </ol> | | </ol> |
Line 119: |
Line 92: |
|
| |
|
| <ol start="3"> | | <ol start="3"> |
| <li><em> RS free energy. </em> | | <li><em> Step 3: the saddle point (RS).</em> For large N, the integral can be computed with a saddle point approximation for general <math>n</math>. The saddle point variables are the matrix elements <math> q_{ab}</math> with <math> a \neq b</math>. Show that the saddle point equations read |
| Compute the free energy corresponding to the solution <math>q_0= 0</math>, and show that it reproduces the annealed free energy. Do you have an interpretation for this?
| |
| </li>
| |
| </ol>
| |
| <br>
| |
| | |
| === Problem 3.2: the 1-RSB (Replica Symmetry Broken) calculation===
| |
| In the previous problem, we have chosen a certain parametrization of the overlap matrix <math>Q</math>, which corresponds to assuming that typically all the copies of the systems fall into configurations that are at overlap <math>q_0</math> with each others, no matter what is the pair of replicas considered. This assumption is however not the good one at low temperature. We now assume a different parametrisation, that corresponds to breaking the symmetry between replicas: in particular, we assume that typically the <math>n</math> replicas fall into configurations that are organized in <math>n/m</math> groups of size <math>m</math>; pairs of replicas in the same group are more strongly correlated and have overlap <math>q_1</math>, while pairs of replicas belonging to different groups have a smaller overlap <math>q_0<q_1</math>. This corresponds to the following block structure for the overlap matrix:
| |
| <center>
| |
| <math> | |
| Q=\begin{pmatrix}
| |
| 1 & q_1 &q_1& q_0 & q_0 \cdots& q_0\\
| |
| q_1 & 1 &q_1& q_0 & q_0 \cdots& q_0\\
| |
| q_1 & q_1 &1& q_0 & q_0 \cdots& q_0\\
| |
| \cdots\\
| |
| \cdots\\
| |
| \cdots\\
| |
| q_0 & q_0 \cdots& q_0&1 & q_1 &q_1\\
| |
| q_0 & q_0 \cdots& q_0&q_1 & 1 &q_1\\
| |
| q_0 & q_0 \cdots& q_0&q_1 & q_1 &1\\
| |
| \end{pmatrix}
| |
| </math> | |
| </center>
| |
| Here we have three parameters: <math>m, q_0, q_1</math> (in the sketch above, <math>m=3</math>). We denote with <math>m^{SP}, q_0^{SP}, q_1^{SP}</math> their values at the saddle point.
| |
|
| |
|
| | | <center><math> |
| | | \frac{\partial \mathcal{A}[Q]}{\partial q_{ab}}=\beta^2\, p q_{ab}^{p-1}+ \left(Q^{-1}\right)_{ab} \Big|_{Q=Q^*}=0 \quad \quad \text{for } \quad a <b, |
| | | </math></center> |
| | | where we called <math> Q^*=(Q_{ab}^*) </math> the value at which the saddle point is attained. |
| <ol>
| | To solve these equations and get the free energy, one first needs to make an assumption on the structure of the matrix <math> Q</math>, i.e., on the space where to look for the saddle point solutions. We discuss this in the next set of problems. |
| <li> <em> 1-RSB overlap distribution. </em> Show that in this case the overlap distribution is
| |
| <center> | |
| <math>\overline{P}(q)= m^{SP} \delta(q-q_0^{SP})+ (1-m^{SP})\delta(q-q_1^{SP}) | |
| </math> | |
| </center> | |
| What is <math> q_{EA}</math>? In which sense the parameter <math> m</math> can be interpreted as a probability weight?
| |
| </li> | | </li> |
| </ol> | | </ol> |
| <br> | | <br> |
|
| |
|
| <ol start="2">
| | == The physics within the replica formalism: a first hint== |
| <li><em> 1-RSB free energy. </em>
| | In Problem 2, we have introduced the overlap distribution: |
| Using that
| | <center> |
| <center>
| |
| <math>\log \det Q=n\frac{m-1}{m} \log (1-q_1)+ \frac{n-m}{m} \log [m(q_1-q_0) + 1-q_1]+ \log \left[nq_0+ m(q_1-q_0)+ 1-q_1 \right]</math>
| |
| </center>
| |
| show that the free energy now becomes:
| |
| <center> | |
| <math> | | <math> |
| f_{1RSB}= - \frac{1}{2 \beta} \left[ \frac{\beta^2}{2} \left(1+ (m-1)q_1^p - m q_0^p \right)+ \frac{m-1}{m} \log (1-q_1)+ \frac{1}{m} \log [m(q_1-q_0) + 1-q_1]+ \frac{q_0}{m(q_1-q_0)+ 1-q_1} \right]
| | P_{N, \beta}(q)= \int_{\mathcal{S}_N} d \vec{\sigma} \, \int_{\mathcal{S}_N} d \vec{\sigma}' \frac{e^{-\beta E(\vec{\sigma})}}{Z}\frac{e^{-\beta E(\vec{\sigma}')}}{Z}\delta \left(q- q(\vec{\sigma}, \vec{\sigma}') \right) |
| </math> | | </math> |
| </center> | | </center> |
| Under which limit this reduces to the replica symmetric expression?
| | This is the distribution of overlaps between configurations extracted at equilibrium, in a fixed given realisation of disorder. On the other hand, the problems above show that replicas play exactly this game: they are different configurations of the system, extracted with a Boltzmann weight at a given realisation of the random energy landscape. They serve as probes for capturing correlations between equilibrium configurations. The saddle point solution <math> q_{ab}^* </math> capture precisely the information on the average distribution of overlaps in the system. More precisely, |
| </li>
| |
| </ol>
| |
| <br>
| |
| | |
| <ol start="3">
| |
| <li><em> Self-consistent equations. </em>
| |
| Compute the saddle point equations with respect to the parameter <math> q_0, q_1 </math> and <math> m </math> are. Check that <math> q_0=0</math> is again a valid solution of these equations, and that for <math> q_0=0</math> the remaining equations reduce to:
| |
| <center> | | <center> |
| <math> | | <math> |
| (m-1) \left[ \frac{\beta^2}{q}p q_1^{p-1}-\frac{1}{m}\frac{1}{1-q_1}+ \frac{1}{m}\frac{1}{1+ (m-1)q_1} \right]=0, \quad \quad
| | \overline{P_\beta(q)}=\lim_{N \to \infty} \overline{P_{N, \beta}(q)}=\lim_{n \to 0} \frac{2}{n(n-1)}\sum_{a>b}\delta \left(q- q_{ab}^{*}\right), |
| \frac{\beta^2}{2} q_1^p + \frac{1}{m^2}\log \left( \frac{1-q_1}{1+ (m-1)q_1}\right)+ \frac{q_1}{m [1+(m-1)q_1]}=0 | |
| </math> | | </math> |
| </center> | | </center> |
| How does one recover the paramagnetic solution?
| | The solution of the saddle point equations for the overlap matrix <math> Q</math> thus contain the information on whether spin glass order emerges, which corresponds to having a non-trivial distribution <math> \overline{P_\beta (q)}</math>. Moreover, the Edwards-Anderson order parameter introduced in Lecture 1 can also be read out from the formalism: |
| </li> | |
| </ol> | |
| <br>
| |
| | |
| <ol start="4">
| |
| <li><em> The transition. </em>
| |
| We now look for a solution different from the paramagnetic one. To begin with, we set <math> m=1 </math> to satisfy the first equation, and look for a solution of
| |
| <center> | | <center> |
| <math> | | <math> |
| \frac{\beta^2}{2} q_1^p + \log \left(1-q_1\right)+ q_1=0 | | q_{EA}= \max \left\{ q_{a \neq b}^{*} \right\}. |
| </math> | | </math> |
| </center> | | </center> |
| Plot this function for <math> p=3</math> and different values of <math> \beta</math>, and show that there is a critical temperature <math> T_c</math> where a solution <math> q_1 \neq 0</math> appears: what is the value of this temperature (determined numerically)?
| |
| </li>
| |
| </ol>
| |
| <br>
| |
|
| |
|
| === Check out: key concepts of this TD ===
| | == Check out: key concepts == |
|
| |
|
| Order parameters, ergodicity breaking, pure states, overlaps, overlap distribution, replica-symmetric ansatz, replica symmetry breaking.
| | Annealed vs quenched averages, replica trick, fully-connected models, order parameters, the three steps of a replica calculation. |
|
| |
|
| === References === | | == To know more == |
| * Parisi. Order parameter for spin-glasses [[Media:Parisi - OrderParameter.pdf| [2] ]]
| |
| * Castellani, Cavagna. Spin-Glass Theory for Pedestrians [https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505032] | | * Castellani, Cavagna. Spin-Glass Theory for Pedestrians [https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0505032] |
| <!--* Zamponi. Mean field theory of spin glasses [https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4844]-->
| |
Goal: use the replica method to compute the quenched free energy of a prototypical mean-field model of glasses, the spherical
-spin model.
Techniques: replica trick, Gaussian integrals, saddle point calculations.
Quenched vs annealed, and the replica trick
In Problems 1 and 2, we defined the quenched free energy as the physically relevant quantity controlling the scaling of the typical value of the partition function
, which means:
The annealed free energy
instead controls the scaling of the average value of
. It is defined by
These formulas differ by the order in which the logarithm and the average over disorder are taken. Computing the average of the logarithm is in general a hard problem, which one can address by using a smart representation of the logarithm, that goes under the name of replica trick:
which can be easily shown to be true by Taylor expanding
. Applying this to the average of the partition function, we see that
Therefore, to compute the quenched free-energy we need to compute the moments
and then take the limit
. The calculations in the following Problems rely on this replica trick. The annealed one only requires to do the calculation with
.
Problems
In this and the following set of problems, we analyse a mean-field model that is slightly more complicated than the REM: the spherical
-spin model. In the spherical
-spin model the configurations
satisfy the spherical constraint
, and the energy associated to each configuration is
where the coupling constants
are independent random variables with Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance
and
is an integer.
Problem 3.1: correlations, p-spin vs REM
At variance with the REM, in the spherical
-spin the energies at different configurations are correlated. Show that
is the overlap between the two configurations. Why can we say that for
this model converges with the REM?
Problem 3.2: the annealed free energy ---> DO IT YOURSELF!
As a preliminary exercise, we compute the annealed free energy of the spherical
-spin model.
- Energy contribution. Show that computing
boils down to computing the average
, which is a Gaussian integral. Compute this average.
Hint: if
is a centered Gaussian variable with variance
, then
.
- Entropy contribution. The volume of a sphere
of radius
in dimension
is given by
. Use the large-
asymptotic of this to conclude the calculation of the annealed free energy:
This result is only slightly different with respect to the annealed free-energy of the REM: can you identify the source of this difference?
Problem 3.3: the replica trick and the quenched free energy
In this Problem, we set up the replica calculation of the quenched free energy. This will be done in 3 steps, that are general in each calculation of this type.
- Step 1: average over the disorder. By using the same Gaussian integration discussed above, show that the
-th moment of the partition function is
Justify why averaging over the disorder induces a coupling between the replicas.
- Step 2: identify the order parameter. Using the identity
, show that
can be rewritten as an integral over
variables only, as:
In the derivation, you can use the fact that
, where
. The matrix
is an order parameter: explain the analogy with the magnetisation in the mean-field solution of the Ising model.
- Step 3: the saddle point (RS). For large N, the integral can be computed with a saddle point approximation for general
. The saddle point variables are the matrix elements
with
. Show that the saddle point equations read
where we called
the value at which the saddle point is attained.
To solve these equations and get the free energy, one first needs to make an assumption on the structure of the matrix
, i.e., on the space where to look for the saddle point solutions. We discuss this in the next set of problems.
The physics within the replica formalism: a first hint
In Problem 2, we have introduced the overlap distribution:
This is the distribution of overlaps between configurations extracted at equilibrium, in a fixed given realisation of disorder. On the other hand, the problems above show that replicas play exactly this game: they are different configurations of the system, extracted with a Boltzmann weight at a given realisation of the random energy landscape. They serve as probes for capturing correlations between equilibrium configurations. The saddle point solution
capture precisely the information on the average distribution of overlaps in the system. More precisely,
The solution of the saddle point equations for the overlap matrix
thus contain the information on whether spin glass order emerges, which corresponds to having a non-trivial distribution
. Moreover, the Edwards-Anderson order parameter introduced in Lecture 1 can also be read out from the formalism:
Check out: key concepts
Annealed vs quenched averages, replica trick, fully-connected models, order parameters, the three steps of a replica calculation.
To know more
- Castellani, Cavagna. Spin-Glass Theory for Pedestrians [1]