LBan-V: Difference between revisions

From Disordered Systems Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 6: Line 6:


For simplicity, we restrict to the fully connected model, where the distance of block <math>i</math> from its local instability threshold is
For simplicity, we restrict to the fully connected model, where the distance of block <math>i</math> from its local instability threshold is
 
<math display="block">
<center>
x_i = 1 - (h_{CM} - h_i) - k_0 (w - h_i).
<math>
x_i = 1 - (h_{CM} - h_i) - k_0 \, (w - h_i).
</math>
</math>
</center>


The first term represents the elastic pull exerted by the rest of the interface, while the second encodes the external driving through the spring.
The first term represents the elastic pull exerted by the rest of the interface, while the second encodes the external driving through the spring.


Here <math>h_{CM}</math> is the center-of-mass position of the interface. Because the sum of all internal elastic forces vanishes, the total external force is balanced solely by the pinning forces. The effective external force can thus be written as a function of <math>w</math>:
Here <math>h_{CM}</math> is the center-of-mass position of the interface. Because the sum of all internal elastic forces vanishes, the total external force is balanced solely by the pinning forces. The effective external force can thus be written as a function of <math>w</math>:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
F(w) = k_0 (w - h_{CM}).
<math>
F(w) = k_0 \, (w - h_{CM}).
</math>
</math>
</center>


As <math>w</math> is increased quasistatically, the force <math>F(w)</math> would increase if <math>h_{CM}</math> were fixed. When an avalanche takes place, <math>h_{CM}</math> jumps forward and <math>F(w)</math> suddenly decreases. However, in the steady state and in the thermodynamic limit <math>L \to \infty</math>, the force recovers a well-defined value. In the limit <math>k_0 \to 0</math>, this force tends to the critical depinning force <math>F_c</math>; at finite <math>k_0</math> it lies slightly below <math>F_c</math>.
As <math>w</math> is increased quasistatically, the force <math>F(w)</math> would increase if <math>h_{CM}</math> were fixed. When an avalanche takes place, <math>h_{CM}</math> jumps forward and <math>F(w)</math> suddenly decreases. However, in the steady state and in the thermodynamic limit <math>N \to \infty</math>, the force recovers a well-defined value. In the limit <math>k_0 \to 0</math>, this force tends to the critical depinning force <math>F_c</math>; at finite <math>k_0</math> it lies slightly below <math>F_c</math>.


== Quasi-Static Protocol and Avalanche Definition ==
== Quasi-Static Protocol and Avalanche Definition ==


To study avalanches, the position <math>w</math> is increased '''quasi-statically''': it is shifted by an infinitesimal amount <math>w \to w + \mathrm{d}w</math> so that the block closest to its instability threshold reaches it,
To study avalanches, the position <math>w</math> is increased '''quasi-statically''' so that the block closest to its instability threshold reaches it,
 
<math display="block">x_i = 0.</math>
<center><math>x_i = 0.</math></center>


This block is the '''epicenter''' of the avalanche: it becomes unstable and jumps to the next well.
This block is the '''epicenter''' of the avalanche: it becomes unstable and jumps to the next well.


When block <math>i</math> jumps by <math>\Delta</math>, both the elastic contribution and the driving spring relax. This gives
When block <math>i</math> jumps by <math>\Delta</math>, both the elastic contribution and the driving spring relax. This gives
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
\begin{cases}
\begin{cases}
x_i = 0 \;\longrightarrow\; x_i = \Delta (1 + k_0), \\[6pt]
x_i = 0 \;\longrightarrow\; x_i = \Delta (1 + k_0), \\[6pt]
x_j \;\longrightarrow\; x_j - \dfrac{\Delta}{L} \quad (j \neq i).
x_j \;\longrightarrow\; x_j - \dfrac{\Delta}{N} \quad (j \neq i).
\end{cases}
\end{cases}
</math>
</math>
</center>


The key feature of the quasi-static protocol is that <math>w</math> does not evolve during the avalanche: all subsequent destabilizations are triggered exclusively by previously unstable blocks.
The key feature of the quasi-static protocol is that <math>w</math> does not evolve during the avalanche: all subsequent destabilizations are triggered exclusively by previously unstable blocks.
Line 60: Line 50:


We shift the parabola by <math>w \to w + \mathrm{d}w</math>. Before the shift:
We shift the parabola by <math>w \to w + \mathrm{d}w</math>. Before the shift:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
x_i(w) = 1 - k_0(w - h_i(w)) - (h_{CM}(w) - h_i(w)).
<math>
x_i(w) = 1 - k_0(w - h_i(w)) + (h_{CM}(w) - h_i(w)).
</math>
</math>
</center>


We now follow the dynamics generation by generation.
We now follow the dynamics generation by generation.
Line 73: Line 60:
During the shift, the center of mass has not yet moved.
During the shift, the center of mass has not yet moved.


* Stable sites (<math>x_i > k_0dw</math>):
* Stable blocks (<math>x_i > k_0dw</math>):
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
x_i^{t=1} = x_i - k_0dw.
x_i^{t=1} = x_i - k_0dw.
</math>
</math>
</center>
* Sites with <math>0 < x_i < k_0dw</math> become unstable.
Since <math>dw</math> is infinitesimal, their fraction is


<center>
* Blocks with <math>0 < x_i < k_0dw</math> are unstable. Since <math>dw</math> is infinitesimal, their fraction is
<math>
<math display="block">
P_w(0)\,k_0dw.
P_w(0)\,k_0dw.
</math>
</math>
</center>


They jump and stabilize at


<center>
 
<math>
Unstable blocks first relax to ($x_i=0$) and are
x_i^{t=1} = \Delta(1+k_0).
then reinjected with a random kick $\Delta$ drawn from $g(\Delta)$,
leading to
\[
x_i^{t=1} = (1+k_0)\Delta.
\]
Let <math>p(x)\,dx</math> be the probability that an unstable block stabilizes in the interval <math>(x, x+dx)</math>.
By change of variables we have
<math display="block">
p(x)\,dx = g(\Delta)\,d\Delta.
</math>
Since <math>x = (1+k_0)\Delta</math>, it follows that <math>\Delta = \frac{x}{1+k_0}</math> and
<math display="block">
d\Delta = \frac{dx}{1+k_0}.
</math>
Therefore,
<math display="block">
p(x) = \frac{1}{1+k_0}\, g\!\left(\frac{x}{1+k_0}\right).
</math>
</math>
</center>


=== Second generation ===
=== Second generation ===


The parabola is now fixed, but the center of mass has advanced:
The parabola is now fixed, but the center of mass has advanced:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
h_{CM} \to h_{CM} + \overline{\Delta}\,P_w(0)\,k_0dw.
h_{CM} \to h_{CM} + \overline{\Delta}\,P_w(0)\,k_0dw.
</math>
</math>
</center>


Thus all sites shift again toward instability.
Thus all sites shift again toward instability.


* Stable sites:
* Stable sites:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
x_i^{t=2}
x_i^{t=2}
=
=
Line 121: Line 109:
\left(1+\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)\right)k_0dw.
\left(1+\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)\right)k_0dw.
</math>
</math>
</center>


* Newly unstable fraction:
* Newly unstable fraction:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
P_w(0)k_0dw + \left(\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)\right)P_w(0)k_0dw .
<math>
\left(1+\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)\right)P_w(0)k_0dw.
</math>
</math>
</center>


=== Higher generations ===
=== Higher generations ===


Iterating produces a geometric amplification:
Iterating produces a geometric amplification:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
1+\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)
1+\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)
+(\overline{\Delta}P_w(0))^2+\dots
+(\overline{\Delta}P_w(0))^2+\dots
Line 142: Line 124:
\frac{1}{1-\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)}.
\frac{1}{1-\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)}.
</math>
</math>
</center>


The quantity <math>\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)</math> plays the role of a '''branching ratio''': it measures the average number of sites destabilized by one instability.
The quantity <math>\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)</math> plays the role of a '''branching ratio''': it measures the average number of sites destabilized by one instability.


We obtain
For stable sites
 
<math display="block">
<center>
x_i(w+dw) = x_i(w) - \frac{k_0}{1-\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)}\,dw.
<math>
x \to x - \frac{k_0}{1-\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)}\,dw.
</math>
</math>
</center>
while unstable sites are reinjected at a random location <math>\Delta(1+k_0)</math>. The fraction of unstable sites is
 
<math display="block">
and a fraction
 
<center>
<math>
\frac{P_w(0)}{1-\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)}k_0dw
\frac{P_w(0)}{1-\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)}k_0dw
</math>
</math>
</center>
is  
 
is reinjected at a random location <math>\Delta(1+k_0)</math>.
 
This yields
This yields
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
\partial_w P_w(x)
\partial_w P_w(x)
=
=
Line 178: Line 148:
\right].
\right].
</math>
</math>
</center>


== Stationary solution ==
== Stationary solution ==


At large <math>w</math>:
At large <math>w</math>:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
0=
0=
\partial_x P_{\text{stat}}(x)
\partial_x P_{\text{stat}}(x)
Line 192: Line 159:
g\!\left(\frac{x}{1+k_0}\right).
g\!\left(\frac{x}{1+k_0}\right).
</math>
</math>
</center>


Solving:
Solving:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
<math>
P_{\text{stat}}(x)
P_{\text{stat}}(x)
=
=
Line 203: Line 167:
\int_{x/(1+k_0)}^\infty g(z)\,dz.
\int_{x/(1+k_0)}^\infty g(z)\,dz.
</math>
</math>
</center>


=== Critical Force===
=== Critical Force ===
The average distance from the threshold gives a simple relation for the force acting on the system, namely <math>
 
F(k_0)= 1- \overline{x} = 1-(1+k_0) \frac{\overline{\Delta^2}}{2 \overline{\Delta}}
The average distance from the threshold gives a simple relation for the force acting on the system, namely
</math>. In the limit <math>k_0\to 0 </math> for the automata model we obtain:
<math display="block">
<center> <math>
F(k_0)= 1- \overline{x} = 1-(1+k_0) \frac{\overline{\Delta^2}}{2 \overline{\Delta}}.
F_c = F(k_0\to 0)= 1 - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\overline{\Delta^2}}{\overline{\Delta}}
</math>
</math> </center>
 
In the limit <math>k_0\to 0</math> we obtain:
<math display="block">
F_c = F(k_0\to 0)= 1 - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\overline{\Delta^2}}{\overline{\Delta}}.
</math>


== Avalanches ==
== Avalanches ==
Line 218: Line 185:


Ordering sites by stability:
Ordering sites by stability:
 
<math display="block">x_1<x_2<x_3<\dots</math>
<center>
<math>x_1<x_2<x_3<\dots</math>
</center>


From order statistics:
From order statistics:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
\int_0^{x_1}P_w(t)dt=\frac1N.
<math>
\int_0^{x_1}P_w(t)dt=\frac1L.
</math>
</math>
</center>


Thus
Thus
 
<math display="block">
<center>
x_n \sim \frac{n}{NP_w(0)}.
<math>
x_n \sim \frac{n}{LP_w(0)}.
</math>
</math>
</center>


Each instability gives kicks <math>\Delta/L</math>.
Each instability gives kicks <math>\Delta/N</math>.


Compare mean kick and mean gap:
Compare mean kick and mean gap:
 
<math display="block">
<center>
\frac{\overline{\Delta}}{N}
<math>
\frac{\overline{\Delta}}{L}
\quad \text{vs}\quad
\quad \text{vs}\quad
\frac{1}{LP_w(0)}.
\frac{1}{NP_w(0)}.
</math>
</math>
</center>


Criticality occurs when
Criticality occurs when
 
<math display="block">\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)=1.</math>
<center>
<math>\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)=1.</math>
</center>


Using the stationary solution:
Using the stationary solution:
 
<math display="block">\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)=\frac{1}{1+k_0}.</math>
<center>
<math>\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)=\frac{1}{1+k_0}.</math>
</center>


Hence:
Hence:
Line 268: Line 217:
* <math>k_0=0</math> → critical.
* <math>k_0=0</math> → critical.


== Mapping to Brownian motion ==
== Mapping to a Random Walk ==


Define
Define the random increments
<math display="block">
\eta_1 = \frac{\Delta_1}{N}- x_1,
\quad
\eta_2 = \frac{\Delta_2}{N}- (x_2-x_1),
\quad
\eta_3 = \frac{\Delta_3}{N}- (x_3-x_2),
\ldots
</math>
and the associated random walk
<math display="block">
X_n = \sum_{i=1}^n \eta_i.
</math>


<center>
The mean increment is
<math>
<math display="block">
\eta_n=\frac{\Delta_n}{L}-(x_n-x_{n-1}).
\overline{\eta}
=
\frac{\overline{\Delta}}{N}
-
\frac{1}{N P_w(0)}.
</math>
</math>
</center>


The walk
An avalanche remains active as long as
<math display="block">X_n > 0.</math>


<center>
The avalanche size <math>S</math> is therefore the first-passage time of the walk to zero.
<math>X_n=\sum_{i=1}^n\eta_i</math>
</center>


remains positive while the avalanche propagates.
=== Critical case (k₀ = 0) ===


Avalanche size = first-passage time.
At criticality,
<math display="block">
\overline{\eta}=0,
\qquad
\overline{\Delta}P_w(0)=1.
</math>


=== Critical case ===
The jump distribution is symmetric and has zero drift. We set <math>X_0=0</math>.


Zero drift → Sparre–Andersen theorem:
Let
<math display="block">
Q(n)=\text{Prob}\left(X_1>0,\dots,X_n>0\right)
</math>
be the survival probability of the walk.


<center>
By the Sparre–Andersen theorem, for large <math>n</math>,
<math>P(S)\sim S^{-3/2}.</math>
<math display="block">
</center>
Q(n)\sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi n}}.
</math>


=== Finite <math>k_0</math> ===
The avalanche-size distribution is the first-passage probability:
<math display="block">
P(S)=Q(S)-Q(S+1).
</math>


Small negative drift → cutoff:
Using the asymptotic form,
<math display="block">
P(S)
\sim
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi S}}
-
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi (S+1)}}
\sim
\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\, S^{-3/2}.
</math>


<center>
Thus, at criticality,
<math>S_{\max}\sim k_0^{-2}.</math>
<math display="block">
</center>
P(S)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi}}\,S^{-3/2}
\quad (S\gg1).
</math>


The universal exponent is
<math display="block">\tau=\frac{3}{2}.</math>


This power law is of Gutenberg–Richter type.


=== Finite k₀ > 0 (Subcritical case) ===


Using the stationary solution,
<math display="block">
\overline{\Delta}P_{\text{stat}}(0)
=
\frac{1}{1+k_0},
</math>
the mean drift becomes
<math display="block">
\overline{\eta}
=
-
k_0\,\frac{\overline{\Delta}}{N}.
</math>


The random walk is weakly biased toward negative values. For small <math>k_0</math>, the walk is only slightly tilted.


 
In this case the distribution retains the critical form
 
<math display="block">
 
P(S)\sim S^{-3/2}
 
</math>
 
up to a cutoff set by the inverse squared drift:
 
<math display="block">
=== Critical Force===
S_{\max}\sim k_0^{-2}.
The  average distance from the threshold gives a simple relation for the force acting on the system, namely <math>
</math>
1-F=  \overline{x}
</math>. In the limit  <math>k_0\to 0  </math> for the automata model we obtain:
<center> <math>
F_c= 1-  \int_0^\infty  d x x P_{\text{stat}}(x)= 1 - \frac{1}{2}\frac{\overline{\Delta^2}}{\overline{\Delta}}
</math> </center>
 
 
 
====Mapping to the Brownian motion====
 
Let's define the random jumps  and the associated random walk
<center><math>  \eta_1 = \frac{\Delta_1}{L}- x_1, \;  \eta_2=\frac{\Delta_2}{L}- (x_2-x_1), \; \eta_3=\frac{\Delta_3}{L}- (x_3-x_2)  \ldots 
  </math></center>
<center><math>
X_n= \sum_{i=1}^n \eta_i  \quad \quad \text{with} \; \overline{\eta_i} = \frac{\overline{\Delta}}{L} -\frac{1}{LP_w(0)}
  </math></center>
 
An avalanche is active until <math>
X_n </math> is positive. Hence, the size of the avalanche identifies with first passage time of the random walk.
* <Strong> Critical case  </Strong>:  In this case the jump distribution is symmetric and we can set <math> X_0=0</math>. Under these hypothesis the Sparre-Andersen theorem state that the probability that the random walk remains positive for  <math>n</math> steps is independent on the jump disribution and  for a large number of steps becomes <math>Q(n) \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi n}}</math>. Hence, the distribution avalanche size is
<center><math>  P(S)= Q(S)-Q(S+1) \sim \frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi S}} -\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi (S+1)}} \sim  \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{\pi}}\frac{1}{S^{3/2}} </math> </center>
This power law is of Gutenberg–Richter type. The universal exponent is  <math>\tau=3/2</math>
 
* <Strong> Stationary regime</Strong>:  Replacing <math> \frac{1}{LP_w(0)}</math> with  <math> \frac{1}{LP_{\text{stat}}(0)} = \frac{\overline{\Delta(1+k_0) }}{L} </math>  we get  <math> \; \overline{\eta_i} \sim - k_0 \frac{\overline{\Delta}}{L}</math>. For small <math>k_0</math> , the random walk is only sliglty tilted. The avalanche distribution will be power law distributed with <math>\tau=3/2</math> until a cut-off
<center>  <math> S_{\max} \sim k_0^{-2}</math> </center>

Latest revision as of 10:07, 3 March 2026

Avalanches at the Depinning Transition

In the previous lesson, we studied the dynamics of an interface in a disordered medium under a uniform external force F. In a fully connected model, we derived the force–velocity characteristic and identified the critical depinning force Fc.

In this lesson, we focus on the avalanches that occur precisely at the depinning transition. To do so, we introduce a new driving protocol: instead of controlling the external force F, we control the position of the interface by coupling it to a parabolic potential. Each block is attracted toward a prescribed position w through a spring of stiffness k0.

For simplicity, we restrict to the fully connected model, where the distance of block i from its local instability threshold is xi=1(hCMhi)k0(whi).

The first term represents the elastic pull exerted by the rest of the interface, while the second encodes the external driving through the spring.

Here hCM is the center-of-mass position of the interface. Because the sum of all internal elastic forces vanishes, the total external force is balanced solely by the pinning forces. The effective external force can thus be written as a function of w: F(w)=k0(whCM).

As w is increased quasistatically, the force F(w) would increase if hCM were fixed. When an avalanche takes place, hCM jumps forward and F(w) suddenly decreases. However, in the steady state and in the thermodynamic limit N, the force recovers a well-defined value. In the limit k00, this force tends to the critical depinning force Fc; at finite k0 it lies slightly below Fc.

Quasi-Static Protocol and Avalanche Definition

To study avalanches, the position w is increased quasi-statically so that the block closest to its instability threshold reaches it, xi=0.

This block is the epicenter of the avalanche: it becomes unstable and jumps to the next well.

When block i jumps by Δ, both the elastic contribution and the driving spring relax. This gives {xi=0xi=Δ(1+k0),xjxjΔN(ji).

The key feature of the quasi-static protocol is that w does not evolve during the avalanche: all subsequent destabilizations are triggered exclusively by previously unstable blocks.

It is convenient to organize the avalanche into generations of unstable sites:

  • First generation: the epicenter.
  • Second generation: sites destabilized by it.
  • Third generation: sites destabilized by generation two.
  • And so on.

This hierarchical construction allows us to compute avalanche amplification step by step.

Derivation of the Evolution Equation

Our goal is to determine the distribution Pw(x) of distances to threshold at fixed w.

We shift the parabola by ww+dw. Before the shift: xi(w)=1k0(whi(w))(hCM(w)hi(w)).

We now follow the dynamics generation by generation.

First generation

During the shift, the center of mass has not yet moved.

  • Stable blocks (xi>k0dw):

xit=1=xik0dw.

  • Blocks with 0<xi<k0dw are unstable. Since dw is infinitesimal, their fraction is

Pw(0)k0dw.


Unstable blocks first relax to ($x_i=0$) and are then reinjected with a random kick $\Delta$ drawn from $g(\Delta)$, leading to \[ x_i^{t=1} = (1+k_0)\Delta. \] Let p(x)dx be the probability that an unstable block stabilizes in the interval (x,x+dx). By change of variables we have p(x)dx=g(Δ)dΔ. Since x=(1+k0)Δ, it follows that Δ=x1+k0 and dΔ=dx1+k0. Therefore, p(x)=11+k0g(x1+k0).

Second generation

The parabola is now fixed, but the center of mass has advanced: hCMhCM+ΔPw(0)k0dw.

Thus all sites shift again toward instability.

  • Stable sites:

xit=2=xi(1+ΔPw(0))k0dw.

  • Newly unstable fraction:

Pw(0)k0dw+(ΔPw(0))Pw(0)k0dw.

Higher generations

Iterating produces a geometric amplification: 1+ΔPw(0)+(ΔPw(0))2+=11ΔPw(0).

The quantity ΔPw(0) plays the role of a branching ratio: it measures the average number of sites destabilized by one instability.

For stable sites xi(w+dw)=xi(w)k01ΔPw(0)dw. while unstable sites are reinjected at a random location Δ(1+k0). The fraction of unstable sites is Pw(0)1ΔPw(0)k0dw is This yields wPw(x)=k01ΔPw(0)[xPw(x)+Pw(0)1+k0g(x1+k0)].

Stationary solution

At large w: 0=xPstat(x)+Pstat(0)1+k0g(x1+k0).

Solving: Pstat(x)=1Δ(1+k0)x/(1+k0)g(z)dz.

Critical Force

The average distance from the threshold gives a simple relation for the force acting on the system, namely F(k0)=1x=1(1+k0)Δ22Δ.

In the limit k00 we obtain: Fc=F(k00)=112Δ2Δ.

Avalanches

We consider an avalanche starting from a single unstable site x0=0.

Ordering sites by stability: x1<x2<x3<

From order statistics: 0x1Pw(t)dt=1N.

Thus xnnNPw(0).

Each instability gives kicks Δ/N.

Compare mean kick and mean gap: ΔNvs1NPw(0).

Criticality occurs when ΔPw(0)=1.

Using the stationary solution: ΔPw(0)=11+k0.

Hence:

  • k0>0 → subcritical.
  • k0=0 → critical.

Mapping to a Random Walk

Define the random increments η1=Δ1Nx1,η2=Δ2N(x2x1),η3=Δ3N(x3x2), and the associated random walk Xn=i=1nηi.

The mean increment is η=ΔN1NPw(0).

An avalanche remains active as long as Xn>0.

The avalanche size S is therefore the first-passage time of the walk to zero.

Critical case (k₀ = 0)

At criticality, η=0,ΔPw(0)=1.

The jump distribution is symmetric and has zero drift. We set X0=0.

Let Q(n)=Prob(X1>0,,Xn>0) be the survival probability of the walk.

By the Sparre–Andersen theorem, for large n, Q(n)1πn.

The avalanche-size distribution is the first-passage probability: P(S)=Q(S)Q(S+1).

Using the asymptotic form, P(S)1πS1π(S+1)12πS3/2.

Thus, at criticality, P(S)=12πS3/2(S1).

The universal exponent is τ=32.

This power law is of Gutenberg–Richter type.

Finite k₀ > 0 (Subcritical case)

Using the stationary solution, ΔPstat(0)=11+k0, the mean drift becomes η=k0ΔN.

The random walk is weakly biased toward negative values. For small k0, the walk is only slightly tilted.

In this case the distribution retains the critical form P(S)S3/2 up to a cutoff set by the inverse squared drift: Smaxk02.