T-6: Difference between revisions

From Disordered Systems Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(16 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<strong>Goal: </strong> The goal of these problems is to understand some features of glassy dynamics (power laws, aging) in a simplified single particle description, the so called trap model.
<strong>Goal: </strong>  
Complete the characterisation of the energy landscape of the spherical <math>p</math>-spin.
<br>
<br>
<strong>Techniques: </strong> extreme value statistics, asymptotic analysis.
<strong>Techniques: </strong> saddle point, random matrix theory.
<br>
<br>




== A dynamical dictionary: noise, energy barriers, out-of-equilibrium, aging ==
[[File:Activated Jump.png|thumb|right|x160px|Fig 6.1 - Activated jump across an energy barrier.]]


<ul>
== Problems ==
<li> '''Noise and Langevin dynamics.''' In problems 5 we have characterized the energy landscape of the spherical <math>p</math>-spin, and showed that it is made by plenty of stationary points where gradient descent gets stuck. In presence of noise,
 
<center> <math>
=== Problem 6: the Hessian at the stationary points, and random matrix theory ===
\frac{d \vec{\sigma}(t)}{dt}=- \nabla_\perp E(\vec{\sigma})+ \vec{\eta}(t), \quad \quad \langle \eta_i(t) \eta_j(t')\rangle= 2 T \delta_{ij} \delta(t-t')
</math> </center>
the random terms kick the systems in random directions in configuration space, allowing to escape from stationary points.
In Langevin dynamics, <math>\vec{\eta}(t)</math> a Gaussian vector at each time <math> t </math>, uncorrelated from the vectors at other times <math> t' \neq t </math>, with zero average and some constant variance proportional to temperature. 
</li>
<br>


This is a continuation of problem 5. To get the complexity of the spherical <math>p</math>-spin, it remains to compute the expectation value of the determinant of the Hessian matrix: this is the goal of this problem. We will do this exploiting results from random matrix theory.


<li> '''Activation and Arrhenius law.''' When the noise in the Langevin dynamics is weak (temperature is small), the dynamics does not get stuck in local minima forever, but for very large time. This time depends crucially on the <ins> energy barrier </ins> which separate the minimum from the other configurations (see Fig 6.1). The <ins>Arrhenius law</ins> states that the typical timescale <math> \tau</math> required to escape from a local minimum through a barrier of height <math> \Delta E </math> with thermal dynamics with inverse temperature <math> \beta </math> scales as <math>\tau \sim \tau_0 e^{-\beta \, \Delta E} </math>. A dynamics made of jumps from minimum to minimum through the crossing of energy barriers is called <ins> activated </ins>.
</li>
<br>


[[File:Correlation Function.png|thumb|right|x160px|Fig 6.2 - Behaviour of the correlation function in a system displaying aging.]]
<ol>
<li> '''Equilibrating dynamics.''' A system evolving with thermal dynamics (e.g. Langevin dynamics) <ins> equilibrates dynamically </ins> if there is a timescale <math> \tau_{\text{eq}} </math> beyond which the dynamical trajectories sample the configurations of the system <math> \vec{\sigma} </math> with the frequency that is prescribed by the Gibbs Boltzmann measure, <math> \sim e^{-\beta E(\vec{\sigma})} </math>, where <math> \beta </math> is the inverse temperature associated to the noise. At equilibrium, one-point functions in time, like the energy of the system, reach a stationary value (the equilibrium value predicted by thermodynamics at that temperature), while two-point functions like the correlation function
<li> <em> Gaussian Random matrices. </em> Show that the matrix <math> M </math> is a GOE matrix, i.e. a matrix taken from the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble, meaning that it is a symmetric matrix with distribution
<center>
<math>
<math>
C(t_w+ t, t_w)= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i(t_w) \sigma_i(t_w+t)
P_N(M)= Z_N^{-1}e^{-\frac{N}{4 \sigma^2} \text{Tr} M^2}
</math>
</math>
</center>
where <math> Z_N </math> is a normalization. What is the value of <math> \sigma^2 </math>?
are <ins> time-translation invariant</ins>, meaning that <math> C(t_w+ t, t_w) \sim c(t) </math> is only a function of the difference between the two times, and does not depend on <math> t_w </math>.</li><br>
 
 
 
 
<li> '''Out-of-equilibrium and aging.''' In some systems the equilibration timescale <math> \tau_{\text{eq}} </math> is extremely large/diverging with some parameter of the model (like <math> N </math>), and for very large time-scales the dynamics is <ins>out-of-equilibrium </ins>.  In glassy systems, out-of-equilibrium dynamics is often characterized by <ins>aging</ins>: the relaxation timescale of a system (how slow the system evolves) depends on the age of the system itself (on how long the system has evolved so far). Aging can be seen in the behaviour of correlation function, see Fig 6.2: the timescale that the system needs to leave the plateau increases with the age of the system <math> t_w </math>, meaning that the system is becoming more and more slow as it gets more and more old.
</li>
</li>
</ol>
<br>
<br>


== Problems ==
In the first of these problems, we discuss the main features of the trap model, a model for glassy dynamics. In the second problem, we discuss the interpretation of the model, using what we know about the energy landscape of the REM and spherical <math> p</math>-spin models.
=== Problem 6.1: a simple model for aging ===


[[File:Trap.png|thumb|right|x160px|Fig 6.3 - Traps in the trap model.]]
<ol start="2">
The trap model is an abstract model for the dynamics in complex landscapes introduced in <sup>[[#Notes|[1] ]]</sup>. The configuration space is a collection of <math> M \gg 1 </math> traps labeled by <math> \alpha </math> having random depths/energies (see sketch). The dynamics is a sequence of jumps between the traps: the system spends in a trap <math> \alpha </math> an exponentially large time with average <math> \tau_\alpha</math> (the probability to jump out of the trap in time <math> [t, t+dt]</math> is <math> dt/\tau_\alpha </math>.). When the system exits the trap, it jumps into another one randomly chosen among the <math> M</math>. The average times are distributed as
<li><em> Eigenvalue density and concentration. </em> Let <math> \lambda_\alpha </math> be the eigenvalues of the matrix <math> M </math>. Show that the following identity holds:
<center><math> P_\mu(\tau)= \frac{\mu \tau_0^\mu}{\tau^{1+\mu}} \quad \quad \tau \geq \tau_0 </math></center>
<center>
where <math> \mu </math> is a parameter.  In this exercise, we aim at understanding the main features of this dynamics. <br>
 
 
 
<ol>
<li> <em> Condensation and ergodicity breaking.</em> Compute the average trapping time (averaging between the traps) and show that there is a critical value of <math> \mu </math> below which it diverges, signalling a non-ergodic phase (the system needs infinite time to explore the whole configuration space). Consider a dynamics running from time <math>t_w</math> to some later time <math> t_w+ t</math>: compute the typical value of the maximal trapping time <math> \tau_{\text{max}}(t) </math> encountered in this time interval, assuming that the system has spent exactly a time <math> \tau_\alpha </math> in each visited trap <math> \alpha </math>. Show that in the non-ergodic phase <math> \tau_{\text{max}}(t) \sim t </math>. Why is this interpretable as a condensation phenomenon?
</li> <br>
 
 
<li> <em>Correlations: slow dynamics and aging.</em> Assume now that the trap represent a collection of microscopic configurations having self overlap  <math>q_{EA}</math>. Assume that the overlap between configurations of different traps is <math> q_0 </math>. Justify why the correlation function can be written as
<center>  
<math>
<math>
C(t_w + t, t_w)= q_{EA} \Pi(t, t_w)+ q_0 \left(1-\Pi(t, t_w)\right), \quad \quad   \Pi(t, t_w)= \text{probability that systems has not jumped in }[t_w, t_w+t].
\overline{|\text{det}  \left(M - p \epsilon \mathbb{I} \right)|}= \overline{\text{exp} \left[(N-1) \left( \int d \lambda \, \rho_{N-1}(\lambda) \, \log |\lambda - p \epsilon|\right) \right]}, \quad \quad \rho_{N-1}(\lambda)= \frac{1}{N-1} \sum_{\alpha=1}^{N-1} \delta (\lambda- \lambda_\alpha)
</math>
</math>
</center>
</center>
In the non-ergodic regime, one finds:
where <math>\rho_{N-1}(\lambda)</math> is the empirical eigenvalue distribution. It can be shown that if <math> M </math> is a GOE matrix, the distribution of the empirical distribution has a large deviation form (recall TD1) with speed <math> N^2 </math>, meaning that <math> P_N[\rho] = e^{-N^2 \, g[\rho]} </math> where now <math> g[\cdot] </math> is a functional. Using a saddle point argument, show that this implies
<center> <math>
<center>
\Pi(t, t_w)= \frac{\sin (\pi \mu)}{\pi}\int_{\frac{t}{t+ t_w}}^1 du (1-u)^{\mu-1}u^{-\mu}.
<math>
\overline{\text{exp} \left[(N-1) \left( \int d \lambda \, \rho_{N-1}(\lambda) \, \log |\lambda - p \epsilon|\right) \right]}=\text{exp} \left[N \left( \int d \lambda \,  \rho_\infty(\lambda+p \epsilon) \, \log |\lambda|\right)+ o(N) \right]
</math>
</math>
</center>
</center>
Why is this an indication of aging?
where <math> \rho_\infty(\lambda) </math> is the typical value of the eigenvalue density, which satisfies  <math> g[\rho_\infty]=0 </math>.
Study the asymptotic behaviour of the correlation function for <math> t \ll t_w </math> and <math> t \gg t_w </math> and show that the dynamics is slow, characterized by power laws. Show that
</li>
<center> <math>
\lim_{t \to \infty} C(t_w + t, t_w)=q_0 \quad \text{ for finite }t_w, \quad \quad \lim_{t_w \to \infty} C(t_w + t, t_w)=q_{EA} \quad \text{ for finite }t
</math>
</center>
When <math> q_0=0</math>, this behaviour is called "weak ergodicity breaking". </li>
</ol>
</ol>
<br>
<br>
=== Problem 6.2: from landscapes to traps ===
In this exercise, we aim at understanding why the trap model is a good effective model for the exploration of the energy landscape of two models that we have studied so far: the REM and spherical <math>p</math>-spin model. While for the <math>p</math>-spin we think about Langevin dynamics, for the REM we consider Monte Carlo dynamics: at each time step the system in a given configuration <math> \vec{\sigma} </math> with energy <math> E_1 </math> tries to transition to another configuration that differs with respect to the previous one by a single spin flip; let the energy of this second configuration be <math> E_2 </math>. The transition occurs with probability one if <math> E_2 <E_1 </math>, and with probability <math> e^{-\beta (E_2- E_1)}</math>  otherwise.<br>




<ol>
<ol start="3">
<li> <em> REM: the golf course landscape.</em> In the REM, the smallest energies values <math> E_\alpha </math> among the <math> M=2^N </math> can be assumed to be distributed as
<li><em> The semicircle and the complexity.</em> The eigenvalue density of GOE matrices is self-averaging, and it equals to  
<center>
<center>
<math>
<math>
P_N^{\text{extrm}}(E) \approx C_N \text{exp}\left[ \sqrt{2\log 2}(E+ N \sqrt{2 \log 2})  \right], \quad \quad E<0, \quad \quad C_N \text{ normalization}
\lim_{N \to \infty}\rho_N (\lambda)=\lim_{N \to \infty} \overline{\rho_N}(\lambda)= \rho_\infty(\lambda)= \frac{1}{2 \pi \sigma^2}\sqrt{4 \sigma^2-\lambda^2 }
</math>
</math>
</center>
</center>
Justify the form of this distribution (Hint: recall the discussion on extreme value statistics in Lecture 1!). Consider now one of these deep configurations of energy close to that of the ground state: what is the minimal energy among the <math> N </math> neighbouring configurations, which differs from the previous one by a spin flip? Does it depend on the energy of the original one? Why is this consistent with the results on the entropy of the REM that we computed in Problem 1?  </li> <br>
<ul>
<li>Check this numerically: generate matrices for various values of <math> N </math>, plot their empirical eigenvalue density and compare with the asymptotic curve. Is the convergence faster in the bulk, or in the edges of the eigenvalue density, where it vanishes?  </li>




<li> <em> REM: trapping times.</em> The results above show that the energy landscape of the REM has a "golf course" structure: configuration with deep energy are isolated, surrounded by configurations of much higher energy (zero energy density). The Arrhenius law states that the time needed for the system to escape from a trap of energy density <math> \epsilon<0 </math> and reach a configuration of zero energy density is <math> \tau \sim e^{-\beta N \epsilon} </math>. This is a trapping time. Given the energy distribution <math> P_N^{\text{extrm}}(E) </math>, determine the distribution of trapping times <math> P_\mu(\tau) </math>: what plays the role of <math> \mu</math>?  </li><br>


<li> <em> p-spin and the “trap” picture.</em> In Problems 5, we have seen that the energy landscape of the spherical <math>p</math>-spin is characterized by the threshold energy, below which plenty of minima appear. Explain why the trap model corresponds to the following picture for the dynamics: the system is trapped into minima below the threshold for exponentially large times, and then jumps from minimum to minimum passing through the threshold energy.
 
</li>
<li> Combining all the results, show that the annealed complexity is
<center> <math>
\Sigma_{\text{a}}(\epsilon)= \frac{1}{2}\log [4 e (p-1)]- \frac{\epsilon^2}{2}+ I_p(\epsilon), \quad \quad  I_p(\epsilon)= \frac{2}{\pi}\int d x \sqrt{1-\left(x- \frac{\epsilon}{ \epsilon_{\text{th}}}\right)^2}\, \log |x| , \quad \quad  \epsilon_{\text{th}}= -2\sqrt{\frac{p-1}{p}}.
</math> </center>
The integral <math>  I_p(\epsilon)</math> can be computed explicitly, and one finds:
<center> <math>
I_p(\epsilon)=
\begin{cases}
&\frac{\epsilon^2}{\epsilon_{\text{th}}^2}-\frac{1}{2} - \frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon_{\text{th}}}\sqrt{\frac{\epsilon^2}{\epsilon_{\text{th}}^2}-1}+ \log \left( \frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon_{\text{th}}}+ \sqrt{\frac{\epsilon^2}{\epsilon_{\text{th}}^2}-1} \right)- \log 2 \quad \text{if} \quad \epsilon \leq \epsilon_{\text{th}}\\
&\frac{\epsilon^2}{\epsilon_{\text{th}}^2}-\frac{1}{2}-\log 2 \quad \text{if} \quad \epsilon > \epsilon_{\text{th}}
\end{cases}
</math> </center>
Plot the annealed complexity, and determine numerically where it vanishes: why is this a lower bound or the ground state energy density?
</li>
</ul>
</ol>
</ol>
<br>
<br>


=== Check out: key concepts ===
<ol start="4">
<li><em> The threshold and the stability.</em>
Sketch <math> \rho_\infty(\lambda+p \epsilon) </math> for different values of <math> \epsilon </math>; recalling that the Hessian encodes for the stability of the stationary points, show that there is a transition in the stability of the stationary points at the critical value of the energy density
<math>
\epsilon_{\text{th}}= -2\sqrt{(p-1)/p}.
</math>
When are the critical points stable local minima? When are they saddles? Why the stationary points at <math> \epsilon= \epsilon_{\text{th}}</math> are called  <em> marginally stable </em>?
</li>
</ol>
<br>


Aging, activation, time-translation invariance, out-of equilibrium dynamics, power laws, decorrelation, condensation, extreme values statistics (typical values of minima).
== Check out: key concepts ==


=== To know more ===
Metastable states, Hessian matrices, random matrix theory, landscape’s complexity.
* Bouchaud. Weak ergodicity breaking and aging in disordered systems [https://hal.science/jpa-00246652/document]
* Biroli. A crash course on aging [https://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0504681]
* Kurchan. Six out-of-equilibrium lectures [https://arxiv.org/abs/0901.1271]

Latest revision as of 15:54, 2 March 2025

Goal: Complete the characterisation of the energy landscape of the spherical -spin.
Techniques: saddle point, random matrix theory.


Problems

Problem 6: the Hessian at the stationary points, and random matrix theory

This is a continuation of problem 5. To get the complexity of the spherical -spin, it remains to compute the expectation value of the determinant of the Hessian matrix: this is the goal of this problem. We will do this exploiting results from random matrix theory.


  1. Gaussian Random matrices. Show that the matrix is a GOE matrix, i.e. a matrix taken from the Gaussian Orthogonal Ensemble, meaning that it is a symmetric matrix with distribution where is a normalization. What is the value of ?



  1. Eigenvalue density and concentration. Let be the eigenvalues of the matrix . Show that the following identity holds:

    where is the empirical eigenvalue distribution. It can be shown that if is a GOE matrix, the distribution of the empirical distribution has a large deviation form (recall TD1) with speed , meaning that where now is a functional. Using a saddle point argument, show that this implies

    where is the typical value of the eigenvalue density, which satisfies .



  1. The semicircle and the complexity. The eigenvalue density of GOE matrices is self-averaging, and it equals to

    • Check this numerically: generate matrices for various values of , plot their empirical eigenvalue density and compare with the asymptotic curve. Is the convergence faster in the bulk, or in the edges of the eigenvalue density, where it vanishes?
    • Combining all the results, show that the annealed complexity is

      The integral can be computed explicitly, and one finds:

      Plot the annealed complexity, and determine numerically where it vanishes: why is this a lower bound or the ground state energy density?


  1. The threshold and the stability. Sketch for different values of ; recalling that the Hessian encodes for the stability of the stationary points, show that there is a transition in the stability of the stationary points at the critical value of the energy density When are the critical points stable local minima? When are they saddles? Why the stationary points at are called marginally stable ?


Check out: key concepts

Metastable states, Hessian matrices, random matrix theory, landscape’s complexity.