T-7: Difference between revisions
Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
<center> | <center> | ||
<math> | <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) | 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> | </math> | ||
</center> | </center> |
Revision as of 16:27, 14 January 2024
Goal: the goal of this set of problems is to derive an estimate for the transition point for the Anderson model on the Bethe lattice.
Techniques: cavity method, stability analysis.
A criterion for localization
- Green functions and self-energies. Given a lattice with sites , we call the wave function completely localised in site . The Anderson model has Hamiltonian
where the local fields are random variables. We introduce the Green functions and the local self-energies : these are functions of a complex variable belonging to the upper half of the complex plane, and are defined by [NOTA SU STILTJIES]
It is clear that when the kinetic term in the Hamiltonian vanishes, the local self-energies vanish; these quantities encode how much the energy levels are shifted by the presence of the kinetic term . They are random functions, because the Hamiltonian contains randomness. They encode properties on the spectrum of the Hamiltonian; the local density of eigenvalues for an Hamiltonian of size is in fact given by
where are the eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian. [NOTA SU PLEMELJI]
- A criterion for localization. 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 goes to zero when . Given the randomness, this criterion should however be formulated probabilistically. One has:
- Green functions identities. Consider an Hamiltonian split into two parts, . Show that the following general relation holds (Hint: perturbation theory!)
- Cavity equations. We now apply this to a specific example: we consider a Bethe lattice, and choose one site 0 as the root. We then choose to be the kinetic terms connecting the root to its neighbours ,
For all the with we introduce the notation
where is the self energy associated to . Show that, due to the geometry of the lattice, with this choice of the Hamiltonian is decoupled and 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
Iterating this argument, show that if denotes the collection of “descendants" of , i.e. sites that are nearest neighbours of except the root, then
- Equations for the distribution.
Problem 7.1:
The Bethe lattice is a lattice with a regular tree structure: each node has a fixed number of neighbours , where is the branching number, and there are no loops (see sketch). In these problems we consider the Anderson model on such lattice.
Moreover, all these green functions are independent from each others.
- show equation for real and imaginary part of cavity self energy - the distribution equations
Problem 7.2:
- Laplace transform - the tails - the solution for beta - the estimate for the transition
Next TD: the directed polymer treatment: KPP (es 1)
es 2: The connection to directed polymer: linearisation and stability. Glassiness vs localization
Check out: key concepts of this TD
References
- Anderson. Weak ergodicity breaking and aging in disordered systems [1]