T-7: Difference between revisions

From Disordered Systems Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Tags: Manual revert Reverted
 
(23 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<strong>Goal:</strong> the goal of this set of problems is to derive an estimate for the transition point for the Anderson model on the Bethe lattice.  
<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.
<br>
<br>
<strong>Techniques: </strong> cavity method, Laplace transform, stability analysis.
<strong>Techniques: </strong> extreme value statistics, asymptotic analysis.
<br>
<br>




=== A criterion for localization ===
== A dynamical dictionary:  energy barriers, out-of-equilibrium, aging ==
[[File:Activated Jump.png|thumb|right|x160px|Fig 7.1 - Activated jump across an energy barrier.]]


<ul>
<ul>
<li> <strong> Green functions and self-energies. </strong> Given a lattice with <math> N </math> sites <math>a </math>, we call <math> |a \rangle </math> the wave function completely localised in site <math> a </math>. The Anderson model has Hamiltonian
<li> '''Noise and Langevin dynamics.''' In problems 5 and 6 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 can get stuck. In presence of noise,
<center>  
<center> <math>
\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>
 
 
<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 7.2 - Behaviour of the correlation function in a system displaying aging.]]
<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
<center>
<math>
<math>
H= W \sum_{a} \epsilon_a |a \rangle \langle a| - \sum_{<a, b>} V_{ab} \left(|a \rangle \langle b|+ |b \rangle \langle a| \right)
C(t_w+ t, t_w)= \frac{1}{N} \sum_{i=1}^N \sigma_i(t_w) \sigma_i(t_w+t)
</math>
</math>
</center>
</center>
where the local fields <math> \epsilon_a </math> are random variables, independent and distributed according to <math> p(\epsilon)</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>
We introduce the <ins>Green functions</ins> <math> G_{ab}(z) </math> and the <ins>local self-energies</ins> <math> \sigma_a(z)</math>: these are functions of a complex variable belonging to the upper half of the complex plane, and are defined by [NOTA SU STILTJIES]
 
 
 
 
<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 7.2: 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>
<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 7.1: a simple model for aging ===
 
[[File:Trap.png|thumb|right|x160px|Fig 6.3 - Traps in the trap model.]]
The trap model is an abstract model for the dynamics in complex landscapes studied 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
<center><math> P_\mu(\tau)= \frac{\mu \tau_0^\mu}{\tau^{1+\mu}} \quad \quad \tau \geq \tau_0 </math></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> Ergodicity breaking and condensation.</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>Aging and weak ergodicity breaking.</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>  
<center>  
<math>
<math>
G_{ab}(z)= \langle a| \frac{1}{z-H}| b \rangle , \quad \quad G_{aa}(z)= \langle a| \frac{1}{z-H}| a\rangle  = \frac{1}{z- \epsilon_a-\sigma_a(z)}.
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].
</math>
</center>
In the non-ergodic regime, one finds:
<center> <math>
\Pi(t, t_w)= \frac{\sin (\pi \mu)}{\pi}\int_{\frac{t}{t+ t_w}}^1 du (1-u)^{\mu-1}u^{-\mu}.
</math>
</math>
</center>
</center>
It is clear that when the kinetic term <math>V </math> in the Hamiltonian vanishes, the local self-energies vanish; these quantities encode how much the energy levels <math> \epsilon_a </math> are shifted by the presence of the kinetic term <math>V </math>. They are random functions, because the Hamiltonian contains randomness. They encode properties on the spectrum of the Hamiltonian; the <ins> local density of eigenvalues </ins>  <math>\rho_{a, N}(E)</math> for an Hamiltonian of size <math> N </math> is in fact given by
Why is this an indication of aging? Show that
<center> <math>
<center> <math>
\rho_{a,N}(E)=-\frac{1}{\pi}\lim_{\eta \to 0} \Im  G_{aa}(E+ i \eta) = \sum_{\alpha=1}^N |\langle E_\alpha| a\rangle|^2 \delta(E-E_\alpha),
\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>
</math>
</center>
</center>
where <math> E_\alpha </math> are the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. [NOTA SU PLEMELJI]
When <math> q_0=0</math>, this behaviour is called "weak ergodicity breaking". </li>
<br>


</li>
<li> <em>Extra: Power laws.</em> Study the asymptotic behavior 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. </li>
</ol>
<br>
<br>


<!---->


<li> <strong> A criterion for localization. </strong> The local self-energies encode some information on whether localization occurs. More precisely, one can claim [CITE] that localization occurs whenever the imaginary part of <math> \sigma(E+ i\eta)</math> goes to zero when <math> \eta \to 0</math>. Given the randomness, this criterion should however be formulated probabilistically. One has:
=== Problem 7.2: Motivating the model: 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 the models that we have studied so far. We focus on the REM. <br>


<center>
<!--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.-->
<math>
\lim_{\eta \to 0} \lim_{N \to \infty} \mathbb{P}\left(- \Im \sigma_a(E+i \eta)>0 \right)=0 \quad  \Longrightarrow \quad \text{Localization}
</math>
</center>
  </li>
Notice that in this criterion, the probability plays the role of an order parameter (like the magnetization in ferromagnets, or the overlap in spin glasses), and the <ins> imaginary part</ins> <math> \eta </math> plays the role of a symmetry breaking field (like the magnetic field in the ferromagnet, or the coupling between replicas in spin glasses). However, the localization transition has nothing to do with equilibrium, i.e., it is not related to a change of structure of the Gibbs Boltzmann measure; rather, it is a dynamical transition. Pushing the analogy with equilibrium phase transitions, one can say that the localised phase corresponds to the disordered phase (the one in which symmetry is not broken, like the paramagnetic phase). DEPINNING
<br>
 
=== Problem 7.1: the Bethe lattice, recursion relations and cavity  ===
The Bethe lattice is a lattice with a regular tree structure: each node has a fixed number of neighbours <math> k+1</math>, where <math> k </math> is the branching number, and there are no loops (see sketch). In these problems we consider the Anderson model on such lattice.  




<ol>
<ol>
<li><em> Green functions identities. </em> Consider an Hamiltonian split into two parts, <math> H= H_0 + V </math>. Show that the following general relation holds (Hint: perturbation theory!)
<li> <em> REM: distribution of depths of traps.</em> In the REM, the energy levels are independent Gaussian variables. In Lecture 1, we have shown that the Ground State <math> E_{\min} </math> has the statistics of <math> E_{\min }=E_{\min }^{\rm typ}+ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2 \log 2}}z </math>, with  <math> z </math> Gumbel. The distribution <math> P_N^{\text{extrm}}(E) </math> of the smallest energies values <math> E_\alpha </math> among the <math> M=2^N </math> can be assumed to be the same. Show that:
<center>
<center>
<math>
<math>
G=G^0+ G^0 V G, \quad \quad G^0 =\frac{1}{z-H_0}, \quad \quad G =\frac{1}{z-H}.
P_N^{\text{extrm}}(E) \approx C_N \text{exp}\left[ \sqrt{2\log 2} E  \right], \quad \quad E<0, \quad \quad C_N \text{ normalization}
</math>
</math>
</center> </li><br>
</center>
(Hint: approximate the Gumbel distribution for small argument).  </li> <br>


<li><em> Cavity equations. </em>We now apply this to a specific example: we consider a Bethe lattice, and choose one site 0 as the root. We then choose <math> V </math> to be the kinetic terms connecting the root to its <math> k+1 </math> neighbours <math> a_i </math>,
<center>
<math>
V= -\sum_{i=1}^{k+1} V_{0 a_i} \left( |a_i \rangle \langle 0|+ |0 \rangle \langle a_i|\right)
</math>
</center>
For all the <math> a_i </math> with <math> i=1, \cdots, k+1 </math> we introduce the notation
<center>
<math>
G^{\text{cav}}_{a_i} \equiv G^0_{a_i a_i}, \quad \quad \sigma^{\text{cav}}_{a_i} \equiv \sigma^0_{a_i a_i},
</math>
</center>
where <math>  \sigma^0 </math> is the self energy associated to <math> G^0 </math>. Show that, due to the geometry of the lattice, with this choice of <math> V </math> the Hamiltonian <math> H_0 </math> is decoupled and <math> G^{\text{cav}}_{a_i} </math> is the local Green function that one would have obtained removing the root 0 from the lattice, i.e., creating a “cavity” (hence the suffix). Moreover, using the relation above show that
<center>
<math>
G_{00}(z)= \frac{1}{z-\epsilon_0 - \sum_{i=1}^{k+1} t^2_{0 a_i}G^{\text{cav}}_{a_i}(z)} 
</math>
</center>
Iterating this argument, show that if <math> \partial a_i </math> denotes the collection of “descendants" of  <math> a_i</math>, i.e. sites that are nearest neighbours of <math> a_i </math> <em> except</em> the root, then
<center>
<math>
G^{\text{cav}}_{a_i}(z)=  \frac{1}{z-\epsilon_{a_i} - \sum_{b \in \partial a_i}t^2_{a_i b}G^{\text{cav}}_{b}(z)}, \quad \quad \sigma^{\text{cav}}_{a_i}(z)=\sum_{b \in \partial a_i}t^2_{a_i b}G^{\text{cav}}_{b}(z)=\sum_{b \in \partial a_i} \frac{t^2_{a_i b}}{z- \epsilon_b - \sigma^{\text{cav}}_{b}(z)}
</math>
</center>
</li>


<li><em> Equations for the distribution. </em> Justify why the cavity functions appearing in the denominators in the last equations above are independent and identically distributed random variables, and therefore the cavity equations can be interpreted as self-consistent equations for the distribution of the cavity functions.</li>
<li> <em> REM: trapping times.</em> 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>? Is the non-ergodic transition in the TRAP model consistent with what we know about the REM? </li><br>
 
<li> <em> Extra: p-spin and the “trap” picture.</em> In Problems 6, 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>
</ol>
</ol>
<br>
<br>


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


=== References ===
== To know more ==
* Anderson. [https://hal.science/jpa-00246652/document]
* Bouchaud. Weak ergodicity breaking and aging in disordered systems [https://hal.science/jpa-00246652/document]
* The model is solved in Abou-Chacra, Thouless, Anderson. A selfconsistent theory of localization. Journal of Physics C: Solid State Physics 6.10 (1973)
* 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 11:30, 12 March 2025

Goal: 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.
Techniques: extreme value statistics, asymptotic analysis.


A dynamical dictionary: energy barriers, out-of-equilibrium, aging

Fig 7.1 - Activated jump across an energy barrier.
  • Noise and Langevin dynamics. In problems 5 and 6 we have characterized the energy landscape of the spherical -spin, and showed that it is made by plenty of stationary points where gradient descent can get stuck. In presence of noise,

    the random terms kick the systems in random directions in configuration space, allowing to escape from stationary points. In Langevin dynamics, a Gaussian vector at each time , uncorrelated from the vectors at other times , with zero average and some constant variance proportional to temperature.


  • 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 energy barrier which separate the minimum from the other configurations (see Fig 6.1). The Arrhenius law states that the typical timescale required to escape from a local minimum through a barrier of height with thermal dynamics with inverse temperature scales as . A dynamics made of jumps from minimum to minimum through the crossing of energy barriers is called activated .

  • Fig 7.2 - Behaviour of the correlation function in a system displaying aging.
  • Equilibrating dynamics. A system evolving with thermal dynamics (e.g. Langevin dynamics) equilibrates dynamically if there is a timescale beyond which the dynamical trajectories sample the configurations of the system with the frequency that is prescribed by the Gibbs Boltzmann measure, , where 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

    are time-translation invariant, meaning that is only a function of the difference between the two times, and does not depend on .

  • Out-of-equilibrium and aging. In some systems the equilibration timescale is extremely large/diverging with some parameter of the model (like ), and for very large time-scales the dynamics is out-of-equilibrium . In glassy systems, out-of-equilibrium dynamics is often characterized by aging: 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 7.2: the timescale that the system needs to leave the plateau increases with the age of the system , meaning that the system is becoming more and more slow as it gets more and more old.

  • 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 -spin models.

    Problem 7.1: a simple model for aging

    Fig 6.3 - Traps in the trap model.

    The trap model is an abstract model for the dynamics in complex landscapes studied in [1] . The configuration space is a collection of traps labeled by having random depths/energies (see sketch). The dynamics is a sequence of jumps between the traps: the system spends in a trap an exponentially large time with average (the probability to jump out of the trap in time is .). When the system exits the trap, it jumps into another one randomly chosen among the . The average times are distributed as

    where is a parameter. In this exercise, we aim at understanding the main features of this dynamics.


    1. Ergodicity breaking and condensation. Compute the average trapping time (averaging between the traps) and show that there is a critical value of 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 to some later time : compute the typical value of the maximal trapping time encountered in this time interval, assuming that the system has spent exactly a time in each visited trap . Show that in the non-ergodic phase . Why is this interpretable as a condensation phenomenon?

    2. Aging and weak ergodicity breaking. Assume now that the trap represent a collection of microscopic configurations having self overlap . Assume that the overlap between configurations of different traps is . Justify why the correlation function can be written as

      In the non-ergodic regime, one finds:

      Why is this an indication of aging? Show that

      When , this behaviour is called "weak ergodicity breaking".

    3. Extra: Power laws. Study the asymptotic behavior of the correlation function for and and show that the dynamics is slow, characterized by power laws.



    Problem 7.2: Motivating the model: 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 the models that we have studied so far. We focus on the REM.


    1. REM: distribution of depths of traps. In the REM, the energy levels are independent Gaussian variables. In Lecture 1, we have shown that the Ground State has the statistics of , with Gumbel. The distribution of the smallest energies values among the can be assumed to be the same. Show that:

      (Hint: approximate the Gumbel distribution for small argument).

    2. REM: trapping times. The Arrhenius law states that the time needed for the system to escape from a trap of energy density and reach a configuration of zero energy density is . This is a trapping time. Given the energy distribution , determine the distribution of trapping times : what plays the role of ? Is the non-ergodic transition in the TRAP model consistent with what we know about the REM?

    3. Extra: p-spin and the “trap” picture. In Problems 6, we have seen that the energy landscape of the spherical -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.


    Check out: key concepts

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

    To know more

    • Bouchaud. Weak ergodicity breaking and aging in disordered systems [1]
    • Biroli. A crash course on aging [2]
    • Kurchan. Six out-of-equilibrium lectures [3]