1: \documentstyle[graphicx,multicol,prl,aps]{revtex}
2:
3: \newcommand\gsim{\raisebox{-2pt}{$\stackrel{>}{\scriptstyle{\sim}}$}}
4:
5: \newcommand {\qdc} {{q^{2}_c}}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: % \draft command makes PACS numbers print
10: % \draft
11:
12: \title{Correlation Time Scales in the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick Model}
13:
14: \author{Alain Billoire}
15:
16: \address{
17: CEA/Saclay,
18: Service de Physique Th\'eorique,
19: 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
20: }
21:
22: \author{Enzo Marinari}
23:
24: \address{
25: Dipartimento di Fisica, INFN and INFM,
26: Universit\`a di Roma {\em La Sapienza},\\
27: P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma, Italy. }
28:
29: \date{\today}
30:
31: \maketitle
32:
33: \begin{abstract}
34: We investigate the dynamical behavior of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick
35: mean field model of spin glasses by numerical simulation. All the time
36: scales $\tau_x$ we have measured behave like $\ln(\tau_x) \propto
37: N^{\epsilon}$, where $N$ is the number of spins and $\epsilon\simeq
38: \frac13$. This is true whether the autocorrelation function used to
39: define $\tau_x$ is sensitive to the full reversal of the system or not.
40: \end{abstract}
41:
42: \pacs{PACS numbers: 75.50.Lk, 75.10.Nr, 75.40.Gb}
43:
44: \begin{multicols}{2}
45: \narrowtext
46: \parskip=0cm
47:
48: Today many features of the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick mean field model of
49: spin glasses \cite{BINYOU,MEPAVI,FISHER} have been clarified.
50: Probably most questions that still need investigations are related to
51: the very interesting dynamics of the model (see for example
52: \cite{AGING}). Here, following Mackenzie and Young \cite{MACYOU}, we
53: examine the equilibrium dynamics of the model. In this classic paper
54: the authors gave numerical evidences, from systems with up to 192
55: spins, for the existence of a spectrum of relaxation times which
56: diverge with the number of spins $N$ as $\ln(\tau) \propto
57: N^{\frac14}$, and of a second, longer ``ergodic'' time scale
58: $\tau_{eg}$ which is the time needed to turn over all the spins, with
59: $\overline{<\ln( \tau_{eg})>} \propto N^{\frac12}$. For doing that
60: one looks both at processes that require a full reversal of all the
61: spins and at processes that on the contrary are not sensitive to this
62: phenomenon. In this letter, we establish that indeed all dynamical
63: scales have the same behavior, compatible with barrier heights growing
64: like $N^{\epsilon}$, where $\epsilon\simeq 0.3$ close to the
65: $N^{\frac13}$ behavior suggested in \cite{RODMOO,VERVIR} (see also the
66: numerical simulations in \cite{COLBOR}).
67:
68: %The first object of interest is the {\em full reversal time} of {\em
69: %flip time}, i.e. the time that the system needs for a full reversal of
70: %all spins. In order to define the exact way we use to compute it.
71:
72: Let us start by giving some details about our simulation. We study
73: systems with $N=64$, $128$, $256$, $512$, and $1024$ spins, with $\pm
74: 1$ couplings. We first thermalize the system using the {\em parallel
75: tempering} optimized Monte Carlo procedure \cite{PARTEM} with a set of
76: $38$ $T$ values in the range $0.4-1.325$ (i.e. $\Delta T = 0.025$). We
77: perform $400000$ iterations (one iteration consists of one Metropolis
78: sweep plus one tempering update cycle), and store the final well
79: equilibrated configurations. Next we start updating these equilibrium
80: configurations (more precisely the subset with $T$ = 0.4, 0.5 , \dots)
81: with a simple Metropolis dynamics, and perform $4 \cdot 10^6$
82: Metropolis sweeps. We have in all cases two replica and $512$
83: realizations of the disorder.
84:
85: For each of these samples we compute the {\em flip
86: times} $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$. We define $\tau_1^{(J)}$ as
87: the time after which, on a given sample $J$, the time dependent
88: self-overlap
89:
90: \begin{equation}
91: q(0,t)\equiv\frac1N \sum_i \sigma_i(0) \sigma_i(t)
92: \end{equation}
93: has become smaller than $+\Sigma$, with
94:
95: \begin{equation}
96: \Sigma \equiv \sqrt{\langle q^2 \rangle_{J}}\ ,
97: \end{equation}
98: where $\langle q^2 \rangle_{J}$, the usual square Parisi overlap, is
99: computed during the second half of the thermalization run for the
100: given sample. The time $t$ is measured in units of sweeps, with $t=0$
101: at the beginning of the Metropolis dynamics. We define analogously
102: $\tau_2$ as the time it takes to $q(0,t)$ to decay from its initial
103: value of $1$ down to $0$, and $\tau_3$ as the time it takes to
104: $q(0,t)$ to decay down to $-\Sigma$.
105:
106: We expect\footnote{Notice that while $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$ are
107: unambiguous signatures of the transition to the reversed part of the
108: phase space, $\tau_1$ can be ambiguous, since depending on $T$ it can
109: still characterize a transition in the short time regime or already an
110: ergodic transition. The fact that the three $\tau_i$ turn out to be
111: compatible gives further support to the existence of a single time
112: scale exponent $\epsilon$.} $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$ to obey
113: the same scaling law. In the following we will try to check if an
114: exponential scaling of the kind
115:
116: \begin{equation}
117: \tau_{1,2,3} \simeq A_{1,2,3} \exp\left(\alpha_{1,2,3} N^{\epsilon}\right)
118: \label{E-TAUSCALE}
119: \end{equation}
120: gives a good fit to the data, and we will try to determine
121: $\epsilon$.
122:
123:
124: We base our analysis on empirical {\em medians} for $\ln(\tau)$, i.e. we
125: sort the 512 values of $\ln(\tau)$ as $\ln(\tau^{(0)}) \leq
126: \ln(\tau^{(1)}) \leq \dots \leq\ln(\tau^{(511)})$ (more precisely the
127: 512 values of $\ln(\tau)$ averaged over the two replica) and define the
128: median as $ \ln(\tau^{(255)})$. For large $N$ and small $T$, the
129: probability distribution of $\tau$ has a very long tail (for large
130: values of $\tau$), and in many cases we are not able to compute
131: average values, since for some samples $\tau$ is larger than the
132: number of sweeps performed. On the contrary, the median approach
133: works, and allows a fair estimate. In all cases where we are also able
134: to estimate the average value of $\ln(\tau)$, we find that it is very similar
135: to the median value. Thanks to this approach we have been able to
136: estimate $\tau_1$ on all our lattice sizes down to $T=0.4$, $\tau_2$
137: down to $T=0.5$ and $\tau_3$ down to $T=0.6$. Statistical errors have
138: been computed using the usual bootstrap procedure.
139:
140:
141: The second decay time of interest is the time scale that governs the
142: decay of, for example, the square (time-dependent) overlap. We
143: monitor the decay of $\overline{<q(0,t)>_J}$ and of
144:
145: \begin{equation}
146: \qdc(t)\equiv \overline{<q^2(0,t)>_J-\langle q^2\rangle_J}\ ,
147: \end{equation}
148: and we call $\tau_q$ and $\tau_{q_2}$ the time scales that
149: characterize the short time decay of these objects (see later for
150: details about the exact definition).
151:
152: Let us start by the results for $\tau_1$, $\tau_2$ and $\tau_3$. In
153: figure (\ref{F-FLIPTAU}) we plot one of our most successful fits of
154: $\tau_3$: here we are at $T=0.6$, the fit is very good and we estimate
155:
156: %This is figure 1.
157: \begin{figure}
158: \centering
159: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig1.ps}
160: \caption[a]{Points with errors are for
161: $\ln(\tau_3)$ versus $N$, and the continuous line for our
162: best fit to the form (\ref{E-TAUSCALE}).}
163: \protect\label{F-FLIPTAU}
164: \end{figure}
165:
166: \begin{equation}
167: \epsilon_{\tau_3}(T=0.6)=0.25\pm 0.04\ ,
168: \label{E-TAUS}
169: \end{equation}
170: that can be compared to
171:
172: \begin{equation}
173: \epsilon_{\tau_1}(T=0.6)=0.20\pm 0.16\ ,
174: \epsilon_{\tau_2}(T=0.6)=0.19\pm 0.07\ .
175: \end{equation}
176: Our estimates for $\epsilon_{\tau_1}$, $\epsilon_{\tau_2}$ and
177: $\epsilon_{\tau_3}$ turn out to be very similar. The general pattern
178: that emerges from these fit is of a very good consistency. Let us go
179: in some more details. Fits to $\epsilon_{\tau_3}$ (here, as we said,
180: we wait for $q$ becoming negative and equal to $-\Sigma$) are
181: available only down to $T=0.6$ (at lower $T$ values $\tau_3$ is too
182: large and we are not able to estimate at all $\epsilon_{\tau_3}$). For
183: $T$ from $0.6$ up to $0.8$ the best fit is very stable with an
184: exponent close to $0.25-0.30$. When going too close to the critical
185: point the behavior becomes less clean. $\epsilon_{\tau_2}$ (where we
186: wait for $q$ becoming zero) can be determined down to $T=0.5$ (
187: $\tau_2$ is smaller than $\tau_3$). Here fluctuations are slightly
188: larger than in the former case, but again up to $T=0.8$ the exponent
189: fluctuates in the range $0.2-0.3$. In the $\epsilon_{\tau_1}$ case
190: (where we only wait for $q$ decreasing from $1$ down to $+\Sigma$) we
191: succeed to get a good estimate down to $T=0.4$. Again here, for
192: example, we estimate $\epsilon_{\tau_1}(T=0.4)\simeq 0.25$, and we get
193: a quite stable fit in $T$. We remark that when $T$ approaches $T_c$
194: the estimates of $\epsilon_{\tau_{1,2,3}}$ have large errors: $\alpha$
195: becomes very small (one expects $\alpha \to 0$ for $T\to T_c$) and the
196: leading $N^{\epsilon}$ behavior cannot be distinguished, with the
197: present range of system sizes, from sub-leading corrections. It is
198: also important to notice that our data fully confirm that different
199: ways to estimate the correlation times (the $1$, $2$ and $3$ $\tau$'s)
200: lead to the same scaling behavior, with a scaling exponent close to
201: $\simeq 0.3$.
202:
203: %This is figure 2.
204: \begin{figure}
205: \centering
206: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig_q2_06.ps}
207: \caption[a]{
208: $\qdc(t)$ versus $\ln(t)$ at $T=0.6$.
209: \protect\label{F-Q2T06}}
210: \end{figure}
211:
212: Let us notice here (and this is the focal point of this note, that we
213: will discuss better in the following) that the result of equation
214: (\ref{E-TAUS}) {\bf does not manifest}, as opposite to the findings of
215: \cite{MACYOU}, a scale of the order of
216: $\exp(c N^{\frac12})$. The scale we observe is governed by an exponent
217: close to $0.3$.
218:
219: We discuss now the measurements of correlation times that do not
220: involve the reversal of all the spins. As an example we plot in figure
221: (\ref{F-Q2T06}) $\qdc(t)$ versus $\ln(t)$ at $T=0.6$, and in figure
222: (\ref{F-Q2T04}) the same quantity at $T=0.4$. The two figures exhibit
223: two regimes separated by some crossover value $t_{max}$: a small time
224: regime, where $\qdc(t)$ decays slowly with $\ln(t)$, and a large t
225: regime where $\qdc(t)$ is very small. This is very suggestive of the
226: existence of a whole spectrum of relaxation times, up to some maximal
227: value $\approx t_{max}$.
228:
229: We have defined the correlation time $\tau_{q_2}$ by computing the
230: time needed for $\qdc(t)$ to decrease from the value $0.25$ to a
231: threshold value $\cal T$ that we vary (reference \cite{MACYOU} was
232: looking directly to the moment in which $\qdc(t)$ is close enough to
233: zero)\footnote{It is important to note that the ergodic correlation
234: times $\tau_i$ and these $\tau_{q_2}$, $\tau_q$ are defined in very
235: different ways, and none of them as a simple, {\it bona fide}
236: coefficient of an exponential decay $e^{-t/\tau}$. The fact that we
237: find that they satisfy reasonable scaling laws shows that the
238: definitions we use are well founded.}. In the case of $\qdc(t)$ we
239: have used the two threshold values ${\cal T}_1=0.125$ and ${\cal
240: T}_2=0.050$.
241:
242: The exponents we estimate by best fits to the form (\ref{E-TAUSCALE})
243: are again quite stable (even if in this case we have not been able to
244: produce reliable error estimates) and, let us note right ahead, if any
245: they are larger than the one estimated for the full reversal times
246: $\tau_{1,2,3}$: we can be quite precise on the claim that
247: the scenario where a slower time scale governs the full spin reversal
248: while a faster time scale governs the valley to valley migration does
249: not apply. As an example we plot in figure \ref{F-Q2TAU} the
250: $\tau_{q_2}$ time as a function of $N$, and our best fit to the form
251: (\ref{E-TAUSCALE}) at $T=0.4$ and for a threshold ${\cal T}_2=0.050$:
252: the estimated exponent is here $0.38\pm 0.05$. The exponent values are
253: very stable when changing the value of the lower threshold, that is a
254: very good sign. In the $T$ range $0.5-0.8$ the estimated value of
255: $\epsilon$ are in the range $0.28-0.38$, i.e. completely compatible
256: with the value $\frac13$ that is reasonable from a theoretical point
257: of view (see for example \cite{RODMOO,VERVIR}). The quality of the
258: best fit degenerates again when $T$ becomes too close to $T_c$. It is
259: maybe worth to stress here that the determination of the exponent
260: $\epsilon$ is a very difficult problem, exponentially more difficult
261: than the usual determination of critical exponents, since here instead
262: of a power behavior we are trying to fit an exponential to a power
263: behavior: if $\tau$ is ranging over $5$ order of magnitudes (that
264: would be more than acceptable for a power fit) its logarithm is
265: ranging over half a decade only, that gives a poor basis for our fit
266: to the exponential of a power law.
267:
268: %This is figure 3.
269: \begin{figure}
270: \centering
271: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig_q2_04.ps}
272: \caption[a]{
273: $\qdc(t)$ versus $\ln(t)$ at $T=0.4$.
274: \protect\label{F-Q2T04}}
275: \end{figure}
276:
277: We have also measured $q(t)$, that we plot in figures \ref{F-QT06} and
278: \ref{F-QT04} for $T=0.6$ and $T=0.4$ respectively. At large times
279: $q(t)$ goes to zero, on the contrary we expect the initial decay
280: to be governed from the same process that determines the decay of
281: $\qdc(t)$. It is also interesting to note that we are observing the
282: expected plateau at the Edwards-Anderson value of the self-overlap,
283: $q_{EA}$: with good approximation one estimates \cite{MEPAVI}
284: $q_{EA}(T=0.6)\simeq 0.50$ and $q_{EA}(T=0.4)\simeq 0.74$. These two
285: values coincide very well with the locations where on our larger
286: lattice we see a plateau: this is very clear at $T=0.4$ in figure
287: \ref{F-QT04} and a bit less clean but also evident at $T=0.6$ in
288: figure \ref{F-QT06}. The finite, large system, spends a long time at
289: $q_{EA}$ before having $q(t)\to 0$ because of the ergodic transition.
290:
291: %This is figure 4.
292: \begin{figure}
293: \centering \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig4.ps}
294: \caption[a]{Data points are for $\ln(\tau_{q_2})$ (without
295: error-bars) versus $N$, and the continuous line for our best fit to
296: the form (\ref{E-TAUSCALE}). \protect\label{F-Q2TAU}}
297: \end{figure}
298:
299: We have checked that by fitting with the same procedure used for
300: $\qdc(t)$, using this time the $q$ interval going from $1$ down to
301: $0.63$ (we use a higher low threshold to stay far from the actual
302: decay to zero). Things work well, and we fit a scaling exponent for
303: the correlation times statistically compatible with the one obtained
304: for $\qdc(t)$. We show in figure \ref{F-QTAU} the analogous of figure
305: \ref{F-Q2TAU}, where the best fit gives $\epsilon_{\tau_q}=0.34\pm
306: 0.02$ (again, very well compatible with the value
307: $\frac13$). Consistent results (slightly lower, of the order of
308: $0.25$) are obtained at higher $T$ values.
309:
310: It is clear from the figures we have shown that $q(t)$ and $\qdc(t)$
311: decay very slowly to zero, on a logarithmic scale. We try to be more
312: quantitative in figure \ref{F-LOGPOWER}, where we show that the
313: $\qdc(t)$ data are very linear when plotted, for example, as a
314: function of $\ln(t)^{\beta}$, with $\beta=0.25$: we do not consider
315: that as a fair determination of $\beta$, since there is a large range
316: of value of $\beta$ that make the plot linear. What we can claim is
317: that $\beta$ is surely a small value, of the order of magnitude of
318: $0.25$. At higher $T$ values we have the same kind of behavior.
319:
320: %This is figure 5.
321: \begin{figure}
322: \centering
323: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig5.ps}
324: \caption[a]{
325: $q(t)$ versus $\ln(t)$ at $T=0.6$.
326: \protect\label{F-QT06}}
327: \end{figure}
328:
329: %This is figure 6.
330: \begin{figure}
331: \centering
332: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig6.ps}
333: \caption[a]{
334: $q(t)$ versus $\ln(t)$ at $T=0.4$.
335: \protect\label{F-QT04}}
336: \end{figure}
337:
338: %This is figure 7.
339: \begin{figure}
340: \centering
341: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig7.ps}
342: \caption[a]{Data points are for
343: $\ln(\tau_{q})$ (without error-bars) versus $N$, and the continuous line for our
344: best fit to the form (\ref{E-TAUSCALE}).
345: \protect\label{F-QTAU}}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348: In figure \ref{F-TAUVST} we show, for our largest system,
349: $\ln(\tau_{q_2})$ as function of $T$. The data are very well explained
350: by the fact that we expect an Arrhenius like behavior,
351: $\exp(\frac{A}{T})$, with $A\simeq (T_c-T)$ \cite{RODMOO}: a
352: coefficient proportional to $\frac{T_c-T}{T}$ fits indeed the data
353: very well.
354:
355: We can sketch a few conclusions. In the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick mean
356: field model of spin glasses one single time scaling dictates the
357: behavior of the correlations times related to the complete reversal of
358: all spins and to the transitions through the different states that
359: constitute the phase space: the speculation suggesting that one could
360: get two different scaling laws is not founded. It is not easy to get
361: precise values for the exponent that characterizes this exponential
362: scaling, but all our findings are compatible with a $\epsilon=\frac13$
363: scaling: this is consistent with barriers scaling like $N^{\frac13}$
364: \cite{RODMOO,VERVIR}. We have also been able to show that the
365: connected squared overlap decays to zero with a power of the logarithm
366: of the order of $0.25$ (and clearly not like a power law).
367:
368: %This is figure 8.
369: \begin{figure}
370: \centering
371: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig8.ps}
372: \caption[a]{
373: $\qdc(t)$ versus $\ln(t)^{0.25}$ at $T=0.4$.
374: \protect\label{F-LOGPOWER}}
375: \end{figure}
376:
377: %This is figure 9.
378: \begin{figure}
379: \centering
380: \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth,angle=0]{fig9.ps}
381: \caption[a]{
382: $\ln(\tau_{q_2})$ versus $T$ for $N=1024$. The behavior close
383: to $T_c=1$ is very linear, while at smaller $T$ values the
384: increase of $\ln(\tau_{q_2})$ becomes sharper.
385: \protect\label{F-TAUVST}}
386: \end{figure}
387:
388: One of us (E.M.) warmly thanks the {\em Service de Physique
389: Th\'eorique} of {\em CEA/Saclay} and the {\em Laboratoire de Physique
390: Th\'eorique et Mod\`eles Statistiques} of {\em Universit\'e Paris-Sud}
391: for the kind hospitality, during which part of this work was done. We
392: thank Bernard Derrida, Giorgio Parisi, Felix Ritort and Marta Sales for
393: useful conversations.
394:
395: \begin{references}
396:
397: \bibitem{BINYOU}
398: K. Binder and A.P. Young,
399: Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 58}, 801 (1986).
400:
401: \bibitem{MEPAVI}
402: M. M\'ezard, G. Parisi and M. A. Virasoro,
403: {\em Spin Glass Theory and Beyond}
404: (World Scientific, Singapore 1987).
405:
406: \bibitem{FISHER}
407: K. H. Fisher and J. A. Hertz,
408: {\em Spin Glasses}
409: (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1991).
410:
411: \bibitem{AGING}
412: J.-P. Bouchaud, L. F. Cugliandolo, J. Kurchan and M. M\'ezard,
413: in {\em Spin Glasses and Random Fields},
414: edited by P. Young (World Scientific, Singapore 1998), p. 161.
415:
416: \bibitem{MACYOU}
417: N. D. Mackenzie and A. P. Young,
418: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 49}, 301 (1982);
419: J. Phys. C: Solid State Phys. {\bf 16}, 5321 (1983).
420:
421: \bibitem{RODMOO}
422: G. J. Rodgers and M. A. Moore,
423: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 22}, 1085 (1989).
424:
425: \bibitem{COLBOR}
426: S. Colborne,
427: J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 23}, 4013 (1990).
428:
429: \bibitem{VERVIR}
430: D. Vertechi and M. A. Virasoro,
431: J. Phys. (France) {\bf 50}, 2325 (1989);
432: Europhys. Lett. {\bf 12}, 589 (1990).
433:
434: \bibitem{PARTEM}
435: K. Hukushima and K. Nemoto,
436: J. Phys. Soc. Japan {\bf 65}, 1604 (1996);
437: M. C. Tesi, E. J. Janse van Rensburg, E. Orlandini
438: and S. G. Whittington,
439: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 82}, 155 (1996);
440: E. Marinari, {\em Optimized Monte Carlo Methods}
441: in {\em Advances in Computer Simulation},
442: edited by J. Kertesz and I. Kondor, Springer-Verlag (1997).
443:
444: \end{references}
445: \end{multicols}
446: \end{document}
447: