1: \documentclass[12pt]{iopart}

2: \usepackage{graphicx}

3: \begin{document}

4: \hyphenation{fer-ro-mag-net fer-ro-mag-nets meta-sta-ble meta-sta-bi-lity

5: con-fi-gu-ra-tion con-fi-gu-ra-tions expo-nen-tially}

6: 

7: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}

8: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

9: \newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}

10: \newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\abs}[1]{\vert#1\vert}

13: \newcommand{\ap}{{\rm ap}}

14: \newcommand{\bin}[2]{{#1\choose#2}}

15: \newcommand{\bl}{\circ{\hskip .21mm}}

16: \renewcommand{\c}{{\rm c}}

17: \newcommand{\ca}{{\rm S}}

18: \newcommand{\co}{{\rm co}}

19: \newcommand{\conf}{{\rm conf}}

20: \renewcommand{\d}{{\rm d}}

21: \newcommand{\del}{\delta}

22: \newcommand{\diag}{{\rm diag}}

23: \newcommand{\dmean}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}

24: \newcommand{\dpar}{\partial}

25: \newcommand{\dyn}{{\rm dyn}}

26: \renewcommand{\e}{{\rm e}}

27: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}

28: \newcommand{\eq}{{\rm eq}}

29: \newcommand{\frad}[2]{\displaystyle{\displaystyle#1\over\displaystyle#2}}

30: \newcommand{\g}{\gamma}

31: \newcommand{\he}{{\rm H}}

32: \renewcommand{\i}{{\rm i}}

33: \newcommand{\im}{{\mathop{\rm Im\ }}}

34: \newcommand{\lam}{\lambda}

35: \newcommand{\lra}{\Longleftrightarrow}

36: \renewcommand{\max}{{\rm max}}

37: \newcommand{\mean}[1]{\langle#1\rangle}

38: \newcommand{\no}{\bullet{\hskip .21mm}}

39: \newcommand{\prob}{{\rm Prob}}

40: \newcommand{\s}{\sigma}

41: \renewcommand{\sp}{{\rm sp}}

42: \renewcommand{\t}{\tau}

43: \newcommand{\var}{\mathop{\rm Var}}

44: \newcommand{\vecn}{{\bf n}}

45: \newcommand{\vecz}{{\bf 0}}

46: \newcommand{\w}{\omega}

47: \newcommand{\C}{{\cal C}}

48: \newcommand{\En}{{\cal E}}

49: \newcommand{\F}{{\cal F}}

50: \renewcommand{\H}{{\cal H}}

51: \newcommand{\I}{{\cal I}}

52: \newcommand{\HB}{{\rm HB}}

53: \newcommand{\M}{{\rm M}}

54: \newcommand{\N}{{\cal N}}

55: \renewcommand{\S}{\Sigma}

56: \newcommand{\T}{{\cal T}}

57: \eqnobysec

58: 

59: \title[Metastability in zero-temperature dynamics]

60: {Metastability in zero-temperature dynamics: Statistics of attractors}

61: \author{C Godr\`eche\dag\ and J M Luck\ddag}

62: 

63: \address{\dag\ Service de Physique de l'\'Etat Condens\'e,

64: CEA Saclay, 91191~Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France}

65: 

66: \address{\ddag\ Service de Physique Th\'eorique\footnote{URA 2306 of CNRS},

67: CEA Saclay, 91191~Gif-sur-Yvette cedex, France}

68: 

69: \begin{abstract}

70: The zero-temperature dynamics of simple models such as Ising ferro\-magnets

71: provides, as an alternative to the mean-field situation,

72: interesting examples of dynamical systems with many attractors

73: (absorbing configurations, blocked confi\-gurations,

74: zero-temperature metastable states).

75: After a brief review of metastability in the mean-field ferromagnet

76: and of the droplet picture,

77: we focus our attention onto zero-temperature single-spin-flip dynamics

78: of ferromagnetic Ising models.

79: The situations leading to metastability are characterized.

80: The statistics and the spatial structure of the at\-trac\-tors thus obtained

81: are investigated, and put in perspective with uniform a priori ensembles.

82: We review the vast amount of exact results available in one dimension,

83: and present original results on the square and honeycomb lattices.

84: \end{abstract}

85: 

86: \pacs{05.70.Ln, 64.10.+h, 64.60.My}

87: \eads{\mailto{godreche@drecam.saclay.cea.fr},\mailto{luck@spht.saclay.cea.fr}}

88: \maketitle

89: 

90: \section{Introduction}

91: 

92: The non-equilibrium dynamics observed in a variety of systems,

93: ranging from glasses to granular media,

94: with its characteristic features of glassiness and aging~\cite{ange,glassy},

95: is often thought of as the motion of a particle in a complex energy landscape,

96: with many valleys and barriers~\cite{gold}.

97: This picture fully applies in the mean-field situation,

98: where barriers are infinitely high

99: and valleys appear as metastable states~\cite{tap,ks}.

100: For finite-dimensional systems with short-range interactions,

101: barrier heights and lifetimes are always finite at finite temperature,

102: so that metastability becomes a matter of time scales~\cite{gs,bir}.

103: 

104: The main goal of the present paper is to emphasize that the

105: zero-temperature dynamics of simple models such as Ising ferromagnets

106: provides, as an alternative to the mean-field situation,

107: interesting examples of dynamical systems with many attractors

108: (absorbing configurations, blocked configurations,

109: zero-temperature metastable states).

110: For completeness, we first give a brief review of the phenomenon

111: of metastability in the mean-field ferromagnet (Section~\ref{mft}),

112: and of the droplet picture implying that barrier heights become finite

113: for short-range interactions (Section~\ref{drop}).

114: We then turn to an overview of the configurational entropy

115: in disordered and complex systems,

116: and of the so-called Edwards hypothesis (Section~\ref{complex}).

117: The rest of this paper is devoted to zero-temperature single-spin-flip dynamics

118: of ferromagnetic Ising models.

119: We characterize the dynamics which lead to zero-temperature metastability,

120: and investigate the structure of the attractors thus obtained.

121: After a general presentation (Section~\ref{gene}),

122: we review the extensive amount of exact results available in one dimension

123: (\cite{ldt,prbr}, and especially~\cite{usrsa}) (Section~\ref{chain}),

124: and present original results on the square and honeycomb lattices

125: (Section~\ref{two}).

126: We end up with a brief discussion (Section~\ref{dis}).

127: 

128: \section{Metastability in the mean-field ferromagnet}

129: \label{mft}

130: 

131: The concepts of metastability and of spinodal line

132: date back to the early days of Thermodynamics,

133: with the seminal work of Gibbs~\cite{gibbs},

134: in the context of phase separation in simple systems such as fluids.

135: In order to summarize these early developments,

136: let us use the more modern language of the Landau theory

137: for a ferromagnet~\cite{ll}.

138: At the mean-field level,

139: i.e., neglecting any spatial dependence of the order parameter,

140: a ferromagnetic system of Ising type is

141: described by the Landau free energy density

142: \beq

143: F(M)=A(T-T_\c)\frac{M^2}{2}+B\frac{M^4}{4}-HM,

144: \label{gibbs}

145: \eeq

146: where $T$ is the temperature, $T_\c$ the Curie temperature,

147: $A$ and $B$ are positive phe\-no\-me\-no\-lo\-gi\-cal parameters,

148: and $H$ is the applied magnetic field.

149: The magnetization $M(T,H)$ is such that $F(M)$ is stationary.

150: It is therefore given by the equation of state

151: \beq

152: \frac{\dpar F}{\dpar M}=A(T-T_\c)M+BM^3-H=0.

153: \label{state}

154: \eeq

155: The corresponding magnetic susceptibility $\chi$ is such that

156: \beq

157: \frac{1}{\chi}=\frac{\dpar^2F}{\dpar M^2}=A(T-T_\c)+3BM^2.

158: \label{chi}

159: \eeq

160: 

161: At fixed temperature $T<T_\c$, the solutions to~(\ref{state})

162: are of the following three types:

163: 

164: \noindent (I) {\it stable}: absolute (global) minimum of the free energy,

165: for $\abs{M}>M_0(T)$,

166: 

167: \noindent (II) {\it metastable}: relative (local) minimum of the free energy,

168: for $M_\sp(T)<\abs{M}<M_0(T)$,

169: 

170: \noindent (III) {\it unstable}: maximum of the free energy,

171: for $\abs{M}<M_\sp(T)$.

172: 

173: \begin{figure}[htb]

174: \begin{center}

175: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.5\linewidth]{figmh.eps}

176: \vskip 5mm

177: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.5\linewidth]{figmt.eps}

178: \caption{\small

179: The three types of solutions to the equation of state~(\ref{state}).

180: Upper panel: Plot of the magnetization $M(H,T)$ against the magnetic field $H$,

181: for a fixed temperature $T<T_\c$.

182: Thin full line: stable solution (I).

183: Thick full line: metastable solution (II).

184: Thick dotted line: unstable solution (III).

185: Lower panel: Phase diagram in the $M$--$T$ plane.

186: Phases I to III correspond to the three types of solutions.

187: Full line: spontaneous magnetizations $M=\pm M_0(T)$.

188: Dashed line: spinodal magnetizations $M=\pm M_\sp(T)$.}

189: \label{figm}

190: \end{center}

191: \end{figure}

192: 

193: Figure~\ref{figm} illustrates this discussion.

194: When the magnetic field $H$ is positive,

195: the stable solution $M(H,T)$ describes the magnetization of the $+$ phase.

196: If $H$ decreases to zero,

197: the magnetization takes its spontaneous value $M(0,T)=M_0(T)$.

198: Coexistence is reached: the $+$ phase becomes degenerate with the $-$ phase.

199: If $H$ decreases further to

200: a small negative value, the $+$ phase still exists but becomes metastable.

201: Its magnetization $M(H,T)$ can be analytically continued

202: all the way until the endpoint of the metastability region,

203: which is reached for $\dpar F/\dpar M=\dpar^2F/\dpar M^2=0$.

204: The corresponding values of $M$ and $H$ are respectively called the spinodal

205: magnetization $M_\sp(T)$ and the coercive magnetic field $H_\co(T)$.

206: All physical quantities are singular at the spinodal endpoint.

207: The spontaneous magnetization, spinodal magnetization,

208: and coercive field read

209: \bea

210: M_0(T)=M(0,T)=\left(\frac{A(T_\c-T)}{B}\right)^{1/2},\nonumber\\

211: M_\sp(T)=M(-H_\co(T),T)

212: =\left(\frac{A(T_\c-T)}{3B}\right)^{1/2}=\frac{M_0(T)}{\sqrt{3}},\\

213: H_\co(T)=\left(\frac{4A^3(T_\c-T)^3}{27B}\right)^{1/2}

214: =\frac{2BM_0(T)^3}{3\sqrt{3}}.\nonumber

215: \eea

216: 

217: The metastable solution

218: is separated from the stable one by an extensive free energy barrier,

219: whose height $\Omega\,\Delta F$ grows proportionally to the volume

220: $\Omega$ of the system.

221: The activation energy density $\Delta F$ is the difference in $F(M,T)$

222: between the metastable solution (II) and the unstable one (III).

223: It has a finite limit

224: \beq

225: \Delta F=\frac{A^2(T_\c-T)^2}{4B}

226: \eeq

227: at coexistence, whereas it vanishes at the spinodal endpoint.

228: 

229: The continuation of the stable phase to the metastable one

230: corresponds to an analytical continuation in the mathematical sense.

231: The magnetization $M(H,T)$, defined as the stable solution to~(\ref{state})

232: for $H>0$, is indeed analytic at $H=0$.

233: The power-series expansion

234: \beq

235: M(H,T)=\sum_{n\ge0}a_n(T)\,H^n

236: \label{aims}

237: \eeq

238: has a finite radius of convergence, equal to $\abs{H_\co(T)}$.

239: 

240: \section{Finite-dimensional ferromagnet: Metastability vs.~droplet picture}

241: \label{drop}

242: 

243: It has been realized in the 1960s that metastability

244: is an artefact of the mean-field approximation.

245: For realistic Ising ferromagnetic systems with short-range interactions

246: in a finite-dimensional space,

247: Fisher~\cite{fisher} and Langer~\cite{langer}

248: have shown that the magnetization $M(H,T)$ of the $+$ phase,

249: or, equivalently, its free energy $F(H,T)$, is {\it not} analytic

250: at the coexistence point $H=0$.

251: Their argument relies on the droplet theory initiated by Frenkel~\cite{frenkel}.

252: Consider, in a $d$--dimensional ferromagnetic model below its Curie temperature,

253: a spherical droplet with radius $R$

254: of the $-$ phase ($M=-M_0(T)$) inside an infinite $+$ phase

255: ($M=+M_0(T)$).

256: The corresponding excess free energy

257: \beq

258: f(R)=2\w R^dHM_0(T)+d\w R^{d-1}\s_0(T)

259: \eeq

260: is the sum of a volume term, proportional to the volume $\w R^d$ of the droplet,

261: to the spontaneous magnetization $M_0(T)$, and to the magnetic field $H$,

262: and of a surface term, proportional to the surface area $d\w R^{d-1}$

263: of the droplet and to the interfacial free energy $\s_0(T)$.

264: Here $\w=2\pi^{d/2}/\Gamma(d/2)$ denotes the volume of the

265: $d$--dimensional unit sphere.

266: If the magnetic field $H$ is positive,

267: the excess free energy is a positive and growing function of the radius $R$.

268: If the magnetic field is negative, however,

269: the excess free energy reaches a maximum~\cite{frenkel},

270: \beq

271: f_\c=f(R_\c)=\w\s_0(T)^d\left(\frac{d-1}{2\abs{H}M_0(T)}\right)^{d-1},

272: \eeq

273: for a finite critical radius

274: \beq

275: R_\c=\frac{(d-1)\s_0(T)}{2\abs{H}M_0(T)}.

276: \eeq

277: 

278: The existence of a critical droplet with a {\it finite} radius $R_\c$,

279: and hence of a {\it finite} barrier height $f_\c$,

280: has far-reaching consequences, both in statics and in dynamics.

281: The reduced barrier height $f_\c/T$ of the critical droplet

282: (in units where Boltzmann's constant is unity)

283: plays a role similar to that of the reduced instanton action

284: $S/\hbar$ in Quantum Mechanics~\cite{zinn}.

285: 

286: \begin{itemize}

287: 

288: \item {\it Statics.}

289: The free energy $F(H)$ of the $+$ phase is not analytic at $H=0$.

290: In other words, the formal power-series expansion~(\ref{aims}) is divergent:

291: its radius of convergence vanishes.

292: It can indeed be shown that $F(H)$ has a branch cut starting at $H=0$,

293: with an exponentially small imaginary part for $H<0$, of the form

294: \beq

295: \im F(H+\i0)\sim\exp\left(-\frac{f_\c}{T}\right).

296: \label{imf}

297: \eeq

298: 

299: \item {\it Dynamics.}

300: If the magnetic field is instantaneously turned from a positive

301: to a small negative value, the `metastable' $+$ phase

302: has a finite lifetime $\tau$,

303: whose order of magnitude is the inverse nucleation rate of a critical droplet,

304: given by an Arrhenius law in terms of the above barrier height:

305: \beq

306: \frac{1}{\tau}\sim\exp\left(-\frac{f_\c}{T}\right).

307: \label{tauinv}

308: \eeq

309: 

310: \end{itemize}

311: 

312: Near coexistence ($\abs{H}\to0$), the estimates~(\ref{imf})

313: and~(\ref{tauinv}) have an

314: exponentially small essential singularity of the form

315: \beq

316: \frac{1}{\tau}\sim\im F(H+\i0)\sim\exp\left(-\frac{\w\s_0(T)^d}{T}

317: \left(\frac{d-1}{2\abs{H}M_0(T)}\right)^{d-1}\right).

318: \eeq

319: 

320: To sum up, for ferromagnets and similar systems,

321: the metastability scenario {\it stricto sensu}

322: (analytic free energy at the coexistence point,

323: infinite lifetime in the metastable region, sharp spinodal line)

324: is a peculiar feature of the mean-field and of the zero-temperature situations.

325: For systems with short-range interactions,

326: at finite temperature in finite dimension,

327: the barrier height $f_\c$ is finite all over the would-be metastable region.

328: The free energy has an essential singularity at the coexistence point,

329: and the lifetime of the metastable phase is finite,

330: although it becomes expo\-nen\-tially large near coexistence.

331: The spinodal line therefore becomes a crossover between

332: the fast decay of an unstable phase (no barrier height)

333: and the slow decay of an approximately metastable phase (finite barrier height).

334: This crossover phenomenon has been recently investigated

335: by means of a sophisticated numerical approach~\cite{bustillos}.

336: 

337: \section{Metastable states and complexity in disordered and complex systems}

338: \label{complex}

339: 

340: From the 1970s on, a variety of complex systems,

341: such as structural glasses, spin glasses, and granular materials,

342: have been shown to possess many metastable states at low enough temperature,

343: or high enough density.

344: The number $\N(N;E)$ of metastable states with given energy density $E$

345: typically grows exponentially with the system size, as

346: \beq

347: \N(N;E)\sim\exp(N\,S_\conf(E)).

348: \label{nconf}

349: \eeq

350: The quantity $S_\conf(E)$ is referred to

351: as the configurational entropy, or complexity~\cite{sconf}.

352: 

353: Most investigations of the complexity

354: were motivated by dynamical considerations.

355: The dynamics of the above systems

356: in their low-temperature or high-density regime

357: often turns out to be so slow

358: that the system falls out of equilibrium~\cite{ange},

359: and exhibits aging and other characteristic features

360: of glassy dynamics~\cite{glassy}.

361: It has been proposed long ago to describe slow relaxational dynamics

362: in terms of the motion of a particle

363: in a complex energy (or free energy) landscape~\cite{gold},

364: with many valleys separated by barriers.

365: Several approaches have been developed,

366: in order to make this heuristic picture more precise,

367: and chiefly to identify these valleys.

368: Metastable states have thus been rediscovered under various names

369: and with various definitions, in different contexts:

370: valleys~\cite{ks}, pure states~\cite{tap,ktw},

371: inherent structures~\cite{sw}, quasi-states~\cite{fv}.

372: 

373: In the mean-field situation,

374: all these metastable states are separated by extensive barriers,

375: so that they have an infinite lifetime,

376: just as the unfavored phase in an Ising ferromagnet.

377: For finite-dimensional systems with short-range interactions,

378: barrier heights and lifetimes are always finite at finite temperature,

379: so that metastability becomes a matter of time scales.

380: Furthermore, from a dynamical viewpoint, the various concepts

381: of metastability recalled above are not equivalent~\cite{gs,bir}.

382: 

383: Whenever metastable states live forever,

384: i.e., either in the mean-field situation or at zero temperature,

385: a natural question concerns their {\it dynamical weights}.

386: Consider a system instantaneously quenched into its low-temperature

387: or high-density regime, from a randomly chosen initial configuration.

388: {\it Does the system sample all the possible metastable states

389: with given energy density with equal statistical weights,

390: i.e., with a uniform or flat measure, or, to the contrary,

391: does any detailed feature, such as the shape or size of the attraction basin

392: of each metastable state, matter?}

393: This question is of interest for any dynamical system having a large number

394: of attractors.

395: 

396: A similar question has been addressed in many works on the tapping

397: of granular systems~\cite{ldt,bm,pbt}.

398: Under tapping, a granular material constantly jumps

399: from a blocked configuration to a nearby one.

400: In this context, Edwards~\cite{edwards} proposed to describe situations

401: such as slow compaction dynamics,

402: or the steady-state dynamics under gentle tapping,

403: by means of a flat ensemble average over the {\it a priori ensemble}

404: of all the blocked configurations of the grains with prescribed density.

405: 

406: Extending the range of application of this idea far beyond its original scope,

407: the so-called {\it Edwards hypothesis} commonly refers to the assumption

408: that all the metastable states with given energy density are equivalent.

409: This hypothesis has two consequences.

410: First, the value of an observable can be obtained by a flat average

411: over the a priori ensemble, or Edwards ensemble, of all those metastable states.

412: Second, the configurational temperature, or Edwards temperature,

413: $T_\conf=(\d S_\conf/\d E)^{-1}$,

414: is expected to share the usual thermodynamical properties of a temperature,

415: and especially to coincide with the effective temperature

416: involved in the generalized fluctuation-dissipation formula

417: in the appropriate temporal regime~\cite{fdt}.

418: The concept of ergodicity, and the resulting thermodynamical construction,

419: therefore hold, as in equilibrium situations,

420: up to the replacement of configurations by metastable states,

421: and of temperature by the configurational temperature~$T_\conf$.

422: 

423: The Edwards hypothesis has been shown to be valid

424: for the slow relaxational dynamics of some mean-field models~\cite{fv},

425: where metastable states are indeed explored with a flat measure.

426: This hypothesis has also been found to hold for finite-dimensional systems,

427: at least as a good numerical approximation,

428: both in the steady-state of tapped systems

429: in the regime of weak tapping intensities~\cite{ldt,bm,pbt},

430: and in the regime of slow relaxational dynamics of various models~\cite{ba}.

431: 

432: Besides the mean-field geometry,

433: another physical situation where metastable states

434: are unambiguously defined is the zero-temperature limit,

435: where no barrier can be crossed at all.

436: The metastable states are then defined as

437: the blocked configurations under the chosen dynamics.

438: For instance, for an Ising model with single-spin-flip dynamics,

439: a metastable state is a configuration where each spin is aligned

440: with its local field, whenever the latter is non-zero.

441: The rest of this paper is devoted to the statistical analysis

442: of the blocked configurations thus generated,

443: before we come back to the so-called Edwards hypothesis in Section~\ref{dis}.

444: 

445: \section{Zero-temperature single-spin-flip dynamics of the Ising model:

446: Generalities}

447: \label{gene}

448: 

449: This section is devoted to an overview of zero-temperature

450: dynamics of ferromagnetic Ising models.

451: In the two following sections, we review the extensive available results

452: in one dimension (\cite{ldt,prbr}, and especially~\cite{usrsa}),

453: and present novel results in two dimensions.

454: 

455: The ferromagnetic Ising model is defined by the Hamiltonian

456: \beq

457: \H=-\sum_{(m,n)}\s_m\s_n,

458: \label{hamf}

459: \eeq

460: where the $\s_n=\pm1$ are classical Ising spins

461: sitting at the vertices of a regular lattice with coordination number~$z$,

462: and the sum runs over all pairs $(m,n)$ of nearest neighbors.

463: 

464: Consider single-spin-flip dynamics (i.e., Glauber dynamics, in a broad sense)

465: in continuous time.

466: Each spin is flipped ($\s_n\to-\s_n)$ with a rate $W(\del\H)$ per unit time.

467: This rate is assumed to only depend on the energy difference

468: implied in the flip,

469: \beq

470: \del\H=2h_n\s_n,

471: \eeq

472: where

473: \beq

474: h_n=-\frac{\dpar\H}{\dpar\s_n}=\sum_{m(n)}\s_m,

475: \eeq

476: is the local field acting on spin $n$.

477: The sum in the above definition runs over the $z$ nearest neighbors $m$

478: of site~$n$.

479: 

480: The condition of detailed balance at temperature $T=1/\beta$

481: with respect to the Hamiltonian $\H$ reads

482: \beq

483: \frac{W(\del\H)}{W(-\del\H)}=\exp(-\beta\del\H).

484: \label{deba}

485: \eeq

486: The two most usual choices of flipping rates,

487: or flipping probabilities in the case of discrete updates,

488: \beq

489: \matrix{

490: \hbox{Heat-bath:}\hfill& W_\HB(\del\H)=\frad{1}{1+\exp(2\beta\del\H)},

491: \hfill\cr

492: \hbox{Metropolis:}\quad\hfill& W_\M(\del\H)=\min(1,\exp(-\beta\del\H)),\hfill}

493: \label{hbm}

494: \eeq

495: obey the detailed balance condition~(\ref{deba}) at any temperature.

496: It is, however, less well-known that there is a vast family of dynamical rates,

497: besides these two choices, which obeys the condition~(\ref{deba}).

498: Indeed, the energy difference $\del\H$ may assume $z+1$

499: equidistant integer values:

500: \beq

501: \del\H=2z,\ 2z-4,\ \dots,\ -2z,

502: \label{list}

503: \eeq

504: so that there are a priori $z+1$ different rates.

505: If the coordination number $z$ is even (resp.~odd),

506: the condition~(\ref{deba}) only gives $z/2$ (resp.~$(z+1)/2$)

507: equations for the $z+1$ unknown rates,

508: so that there remain $(z+2)/2$ (resp.~$(z+1)/2$) free parameters

509: (one of them corresponding to the absolute time scale).

510: 

511: The arbitrariness described above persists in the zero-temperature limit.

512: The condition of detailed balance~(\ref{deba}) indeed reads

513: \beq

514: W(\del\H)=0\quad\hbox{for all }\del\H>0,

515: \label{baz}

516: \eeq

517: whereas nothing is imposed on the rates with $\del\H\le0$.

518: For the sake of definiteness,

519: we focus our attention onto the class of zero-temperature dynamics defined

520: by the following flipping rates:

521: \beq

522: W(\del\H)=\left\{\matrix{

523: 0\hfill&\hbox{if }\del\H>0,\cr

524: W_0\quad\hfill&\hbox{if }\del\H=0,\cr

525: 1\hfill&\hbox{if }\del\H<0.}\right.%}

526: \label{wz}

527: \eeq

528: The rate~$W_0$ relative to the {\it free} spins is kept as a parameter.

529: A free spin is defined as a spin $\s_n$

530: which is subjected to a zero local field ($h_n=0$, hence $\del\H=0$).

531: Free spins can only exist if the coordination number $z$ is even,

532: so that 0 belongs to the list~(\ref{list}).

533: The zero-temperature limits of the heat-bath and Metropolis rates~(\ref{hbm})

534: are respectively ${W_0}_\HB=1/2$ and ${W_0}_\M=1$.

535: 

536: The zero-temperature dynamics of ferromagnetic Ising systems

537: is far from being a trivial problem in general~\cite{red,ns}.

538: The single-spin-flip dynamics defined by~(\ref{wz}) is a descent dynamics

539: (i.e., every move strictly lowers the total energy)

540: in the following two situations:

541: 

542: \begin{itemize}

543: 

544: \item $z$ is odd, so that there are no free spins at all.

545: \item $z$ is even and $W_0=0$.

546: The corresponding dynamics is said to be {\it constrained}.

547: As such it belongs to the class of

548: {\it kinetically constrained} systems~\cite{barc,riso}.

549: 

550: \end{itemize}

551: 

552: In both situations, every spin flips a finite number of times,

553: and the system gets trapped in a non-trivial attractor

554: (absorbing configuration, blocked confi\-guration,

555: zero-temperature metastable state).

556: 

557: \section{Constrained zero-temperature single-spin-flip dynamics

558: on the Ising chain}

559: \label{chain}

560: 

561: The one-dimensional situation of a chain of spins corresponds to the

562: smallest possible value of the coordination number ($z=2$),

563: so that the list of values of the energy difference is 4, 0, and $-4$.

564: The heat-bath dynamics has been solved exactly by Glauber~\cite{glau}.

565: 

566: Let us focus our attention onto zero-temperature dynamics.

567: For any non-zero value of the rate $W_0$ corresponding to free spins,

568: the dynamics belongs to the universality class of the zero-temperature

569: Glauber model.

570: This is a prototypical example of phase ordering by domain growth

571: (coarsening)~\cite{bray}.

572: The typical size of ordered domains of consecutive $+$ and $-$ spins

573: grows as $L(t)\sim t^{1/2}$.

574: The energy density $E(t)=-1+2/L(t)$ therefore

575: relaxes to its ground-state value as $t^{-1/2}$.

576: The particular value $W_0=0$ corresponds to

577: the constrained zero-temperature Glauber dynamics,

578: which has been investigated in~\cite{ldt,prbr}, and especially in~\cite{usrsa}.

579: Hereafter we summarize the main results of these investigations.

580: 

581: \subsection{Mapping onto the dimer RSA model}

582: 

583: In the constrained zero-temperature Glauber dynamics,

584: the only possible moves are flips of isolated spins:

585: \beq

586: -+-\;\to\;---,\quad+-+\;\to\;+++.

587: \label{gls}

588: \eeq

589: Each move suppresses two consecutive unsatisfied bonds.

590: The system therefore eventually reaches a blocked configuration,

591: where there is no isolated spin, i.e., up and down spins form clusters

592: whose length is at least two.

593: Equivalently, each unsatisfied bond (or domain wall) is isolated.

594: These blocked configurations are the zero-temperature analogues

595: of metastable states.

596: 

597: The dynamics can be recast in the following illuminating way.

598: Going to the dual lattice, where dual sites represent bonds,

599: let us represent unsatisfied bonds as empty dual sites,

600: and satisfied bonds as occupied dual sites:

601: \beq

602: \left\{\matrix{

603: \t_n=\s_n\s_{n+1}=-1\lra\bl,\hfill\cr

604: \t_n=\s_n\s_{n+1}=+1\lra\no,\hfill

605: }\right.%}

606: \label{corrbond}

607: \eeq

608: so that the moves~(\ref{gls}) read

609: \beq

610: \bl\bl\to\no\no.

611: \label{rsadim}

612: \eeq

613: This mapping shows at once that the dynamics is fully irreversible,

614: in the sense that each spin flips at most once

615: during the whole history of the sample.

616: 

617: The dynamics~(\ref{rsadim}) is identical to that of the

618: random sequential adsorption (RSA) of lattice dimers,

619: which has been considered long ago~\cite{flory,core}.

620: This is one of the simplest examples of RSA problems,

621: for which powerful analytical techniques are available in one dimension,

622: both on the lattice and in the continuum~\cite{rsa}.

623: A blocked configuration thus appears as a jammed state of the dimer RSA model,

624: as illustrated on the following example:

625: \bea

626: &&+---++--++++---+++-----+++--\cr

627: &&{\hskip 2.5mm}

628: \bl\no\no\bl\no\bl\no\bl\no\no\no\bl\no\no\bl

629: \no\no\bl\no\no\no\no\bl\no\no\bl\no

630: \eea

631: 

632: \subsection{Relaxation of the mean energy}

633: 

634: We consider as initial state the equilibrium state at finite temperature $T_0$.

635: Each bond variable is independently drawn from the binary distribution

636: \beq

637: \t_n=\left\{\matrix{

638: -1\hfill&(\bl)\hfill&\hbox{with probability}\;p,\hfill\cr

639: +1\hfill&(\no)\hfill&\hbox{with probability}\;1-p,\hfill

640: }\right.%}

641: \label{epsf}

642: \eeq

643: where the parameter $p$ is related to the energy density $E_0$

644: of the initial state and to the corresponding temperature $T_0$ by

645: \beq

646: \beta_0=\frac{1}{T_0}=\frac{1}{2}\,\ln\frac{1-p}{p},\quad E_0=-1+2p.

647: \eeq

648: 

649: It is a common feature of one-dimensional RSA problems~\cite{rsa}

650: that the densities of certain patterns obey closed rate equations.

651: In the present case,

652: the densities $p_\ell(t)$ of clusters made of exactly~$\ell$

653: consecutive unsatisfied bonds (empty dual sites)

654: obey the linear equations~\cite{usrsa,flory}

655: \beq

656: \frac{\d p_\ell(t)}{\d t}=-(\ell-1)p_\ell(t)+2\sum_{k\ge\ell+2}p_k(t)

657: \label{dpl}

658: \eeq

659: for $\ell\ge1$, with $p_\ell(0)=(1-p)^2p^\ell$.

660: These equations can be solved by making the Ansatz

661: $p_\ell(t)=a(t)\,z(t)^\ell$ for $\ell\ge1$.

662: The solution thus obtained,

663: \beq

664: p_\ell(t)=(1-p\e^{-t})^2\exp(2p(\e^{-t}-1))\,p^\ell\e^{-(\ell-1)t},

665: \label{plt}

666: \eeq

667: leads to

668: \beq

669: E(t)=-1+2\sum_{\ell\ge1}\ell\,p_\ell(t)=-1+2p\exp(2p(\e^{-t}-1)).

670: \eeq

671: Only clusters of length $\ell=1$ survive in the blocked configurations,

672: as could be expected.

673: These defects occur with a finite density,

674: \beq

675: p_1(\infty)=p\e^{-2p},

676: \eeq

677: so that the energy density of blocked configurations

678: takes a non-trivial value, which depends continuously

679: on the initial temperature via the parameter $p$~\cite{ldt,prbr,usrsa}:

680: \beq

681: E_\infty=E(\infty)=-1+2p\e^{-2p}.

682: \label{einf}

683: \eeq

684: This non-trivial dependence is a clear evidence

685: that the dynamics is not ergodic.

686: For an initial state close to the ferromagnetic ground-state

687: ($E_0\to-1$, i.e., $p\to0$), the behavior $E_\infty\approx E_0-4p^2$

688: is easily explained in terms of the clusters made of two empty sites.

689: The energy of blocked states then increases monotonically with $p$,

690: up to the maximum value $E_\infty=-1+\e^{-1}\approx-0.632121$,

691: for an uncorrelated (infinite-temperature)

692: initial state ($p=1/2$, i.e., $E_0=0$),

693: and then decreases monotonically with $p$, down to the value

694: $E_\infty=-1+2\e^{-2}\approx-0.729329$,

695: corresponding to an antiferromagnetically ordered initial state ($p=1$).

696: 

697: \subsection{Distribution of the blocking time}

698: 

699: The late stages of the dynamics are dominated

700: by an exponentially small density of surviving clusters made of two empty sites.

701: More precisely,~(\ref{plt}) shows that their density reads

702: $p_2(t)\approx\alpha\e^{-t}$, with $\alpha=p^2\e^{-2p}$.

703: The dynamics can therefore be effectively described by

704: a collection of $\alpha N$ such clusters,

705: each cluster decaying exponentially with unit rate, when a down spin flips.

706: The blocking time $T_N$ is the largest of the decay times of those clusters.

707: For a large sample, it is therefore distributed according to extreme-value

708: statistics~\cite{gumbel}:

709: \beq

710: T_N=\ln(\alpha N)+X_N,

711: \label{tx}

712: \eeq

713: where the fluctuation $X_N$ remains of order unity,

714: and is asymptotically distributed according to the Gumbel law:

715: $f(X)=\exp(-X-\e^{-X})$.

716: 

717: \subsection{Distribution of the final energy: Dynamics vs.~a priori ensemble}

718: 

719: The attractors of the zero-temperature constrained

720: single-spin-flip dynamics of the Ising chain are the spin configurations

721: where every unsatisfied bond is isolated.

722: The most natural statistical description of these attractors

723: is provided by the a priori ensemble

724: where all the blocked configurations with given energy density $E$

725: are taken with equal weights.

726: 

727: In this section, the exact distribution of the final energy

728: of the blocked con\-fi\-gu\-ra\-tions is compared to the prediction

729: of the a priori approach.

730: It turns out that there are two a priori predictions,

731: the second (refined) one being a far better approximation

732: than the first (naive) one.

733: 

734: For a finite chain made of $N$ spins,

735: the number of blocked configurations with exactly $M$ unsatisfied bonds,

736: i.e., empty dual sites, reads

737: \beq

738: \N_{N,M}=\bin{N-M+b}{M},

739: \label{bino}

740: \eeq

741: where $b=0$ (resp.~1) for a closed (resp.~open) chain.

742: This is indeed the number of ways of inserting the $M$ empty sites

743: in the $N-M+b$ spaces made available by the presence

744: of $N-M$ occupied sites, with at most one empty site

745: per available space~\cite{usrsa}.

746: In the limit of a large system ($M,N\to\infty$,

747: with a fixed ratio $M/N=(E+1)/2$), this number grows exponentially,

748: irrespective of $b$, as

749: \beq

750: \N(N;E)\sim\exp(N\,S_\ap(E)),

751: \eeq

752: in accord with~(\ref{nconf}).

753: The a priori configurational entropy reads~\cite{ldt,cri,bfs}

754: \beq

755: S_\ap(E)=E\ln(-2E)+\frac{1-E}{2}\ln(1-E)-\frac{1+E}{2}\ln(1+E).

756: \label{sap}

757: \eeq

758: 

759: This result can be alternatively derived

760: by means of the transfer-matrix method~\cite{baxter,tm}.

761: For a finite chain of $N$ spins, we introduce the partition function

762: \beq

763: Z_N=\sum_\C\e^{-\g\H(\C)},

764: \eeq

765: where the sum runs over all the blocked configurations $\C$,

766: as well as the partial partition functions $Z_N^\no$, $Z_N^\bl$

767: labeled by the prescribed value of the last bond, according to~(\ref{corrbond}).

768: The latter quantities obey the recursion

769: \beq

770: \pmatrix{Z_{N+1}^\no\cr Z_{N+1}^\bl}=\T\pmatrix{Z_N^\no\cr Z_N^\bl},\quad

771: \T=\pmatrix{\e^\g&\e^\g\cr\e^{-\g}&0}.

772: \eeq

773: The $2\times2$ transfer matrix $\T$ has eigenvalues

774: \beq

775: \lam_\pm=\frac{\e^\g\pm\sqrt{4+\e^{2\g}}}{2},

776: \eeq

777: so that $Z_N^\no\sim Z_N^\bl\sim\exp(N\ln\lam_+)$.

778: The configurational entropy $S_\ap(E)$

779: is therefore given by a Legendre transform:

780: \beq

781: \ln\lam_+(\g)+\g E-S_\ap(E)=0,

782: \quad E=-\frac{\d\ln\lam_+}{\d\g},

783: \quad\g=\frac{\d S_\ap}{\d E},

784: \label{thertrans}

785: \eeq

786: hence

787: \beq

788: E=-\frac{\e^\g}{\sqrt{4+\e^{2\g}}},\quad\g=\ln\frac{-2E}{\sqrt{1-E^2}},

789: \label{egge}

790: \eeq

791: so that~(\ref{sap}) is recovered.

792: 

793: The most naive prediction for the probability distribution $f(E)$

794: of the final energy density

795: is that $f(E)$ is proportional to the number $\N(N;E)$.

796: We thus obtain a large-deviation estimate of the form

797: \beq

798: f(E)\sim\exp(-N\,\S_\ap(E)),

799: \eeq

800: where the naive prediction for the large-deviation function $\S_\ap(E)$ reads

801: \beq

802: \S_\ap(E)=S_\max-S_\ap(E),

803: \label{signai}

804: \eeq

805: with

806: \beq

807: S_\max=\ln\frac{\sqrt{5}+1}{2}\approx0.481212

808: \label{smax}

809: \eeq

810: being the maximum of the configurational entropy $S_\ap(E)$.

811: This maximum is reached for

812: \beq

813: E_\max=-\frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}\approx-0.447214,

814: \label{eap}

815: \eeq

816: which is therefore the typical a priori energy density

817: of a blocked configuration.

818: 

819: A more refined prediction for the distribution of the final energy density,

820: introduced in the context of Kawasaki dynamics~\cite{uskawa},

821: resides on the following observation.

822: The mean energy density of blocked configurations,

823: as they are generated by the zero-temperature dynamics,

824: is equal to $E_\infty$, given by~(\ref{einf}),

825: which is in general different from the a priori value~(\ref{eap}).

826: Within the a priori formalism under consideration,

827: this difference is taken into account

828: by attributing to every configuration $\C$

829: an extra weight of the form $\exp(-\g_{\rm eff}NE(\C))$.

830: The effective inverse temperature $\g_{\rm eff}$ is chosen so that

831: the mean energy density

832: coincides with~(\ref{einf}), hence $\g_{\rm eff}=\g(E_\infty)$,

833: where $\g(E)=\d S_\ap/\d E$ is given in~(\ref{egge}).

834: This procedure amounts to replacing the configurational entropy $S_\ap(E)$,

835: which is maximal at $E=E_\max$, by the relative entropy

836: \beq

837: S_\ap(E\vert E_\infty)=S_\ap(E)-(E-E_\infty)\g(E_\infty),

838: \eeq

839: which is maximal at $E=E_\infty$ by construction.

840: The resulting prediction for the distribution

841: of the final energy density now involves

842: the refined large-deviation function

843: \beq

844: \S_\ap(E\vert E_\infty)=S_\ap(E_\infty)-S_\ap(E)+(E-E_\infty)\g(E_\infty).

845: \label{sigref}

846: \eeq

847: 

848: It turns out that the distribution of the final energy density

849: of the blocked configurations,

850: as they are generated by the zero-temperature dynamics,

851: has been evaluated exactly by analytical means~\cite{usrsa}.

852: We prefer to skip every detail of this rather lengthy derivation

853: and to state the result.

854: The distribution of the final energy density

855: is given by an exponential estimate of the form

856: \beq

857: f(E)\sim\exp(-N\,\S_\dyn(E)),

858: \eeq

859: where the large-deviation function $\S_\dyn(E)$

860: depends on the parameter $p$ characterizing the initial state,

861: and reads, in parametric form:

862: \bea

863: &&{\hskip -4.75mm}

864: \S_\dyn=\ln z+\frac{(1+(2p-1)z)^2-(z-1)^2\e^{4p z}}

865: {4p z^2\e^{2p z}(2(1-p)+(2p-1)z)}

866: \ln\frac{1+(2p-1)z+(1-z)\e^{2p z}}{1+(2p-1)z-(1-z)\e^{2p z}},\nonumber\\

867: &&

868: E=-1+\frac{(1+(2p-1)z)^2-(z-1)^2\e^{4p z}}

869: {2p z^2\e^{2p z}(2(1-p)+(2p-1)z)}.

870: \label{sigf}

871: \eea

872: 

873: \begin{figure}[htb]

874: \begin{center}

875: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.5\linewidth]{figent.eps}

876: \caption{\small

877: Full line: plot of the dynamical entropy

878: of the ferromagnetic chain with constrained Glauber dynamics,

879: given by $\S_\dyn(E)$~(\ref{sigf}), against energy $E$,

880: for an uncorrelated initial state ($p=1/2)$.

881: Dash-dotted line: prediction~(\ref{signai}) of the naive a priori approach.

882: Dashed line: prediction~(\ref{sigref}) of the refined a priori approach

883: (after~\cite{usrsa}).}

884: \label{figent}

885: \end{center}

886: \end{figure}

887: 

888: Figure~\ref{figent} shows a comparison between the dynamical entropy

889: $\S_\dyn(E)$, given by~(\ref{sigf}),

890: for an uncorrelated (infinite-temperature) initial state ($p=1/2)$,

891: and the predictions~(\ref{signai}) of the naive a priori approach

892: and~(\ref{sigref}) of refined a priori approach.

893: The refined prediction turns out to be a good approximation

894: to the dynamical entropy, although it is not exact.

895: The following particular values allow a quantitative comparison.

896: At the ground-state energy density $E=-1$, one has

897: \beq

898: \S_\dyn(-1)=\ln z_\c(p),\quad

899: \S_\ap(-1\vert E_\infty)=\ln\frac{1-p\e^{-2p}}{1-2p\e^{-2p}}

900: \eeq

901: with

902: \beq

903: 1+(2p-1)z_\c+(1-z_\c)\e^{2p z_\c}=0,

904: \label{zcp}

905: \eeq

906: i.e., for $p=1/2$,

907: $\S_\dyn(-1)\approx0.245660$, $\S_\ap(-1\vert E_\infty)\approx0.255408$.

908: At the maximum allowed energy $E=0$, one has

909: \beq

910: \S_\dyn(0)=-\frac{1}{2}\ln p(1-p),\quad

911: \S_\ap(0\vert E_\infty)=\frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{1-p\e^{-2p}}{p\e^{-2p}},

912: \eeq

913: i.e., for $p=1/2$,

914: $\S_\dyn(0)\approx0.693147$, $\S_\ap(0\vert E_\infty)\approx0.744940$.

915: 

916: Another quantity of interest is the dynamical specific heat $C_\dyn$,

917: which is defined as the curvature of the dynamical entropy

918: at the mean energy density,

919: \beq

920: \S_\dyn(E)\approx\frac{(E-E_\infty)^2}{2C_\dyn},

921: \eeq

922: so that the energy variance (in the sense of sample to sample fluctuations

923: of the observed energy per spin in the blocked configurations) behaves as

924: \beq

925: \var E\approx\frac{C_\dyn}{N}.

926: \eeq

927: The exact dynamical entropy~(\ref{sigf})

928: and the refined a priori prediction~(\ref{sigref}) respectively yield

929: \beq

930: C_\dyn=4p\e^{-4p}(1-p+4p^2),\quad

931: C_\ap=4p\e^{-2p}(1-p\e^{-2p})(1-2p\e^{-2p}),

932: \eeq

933: i.e., for $p=1/2$,

934: $C_\dyn\approx0.406006$, $C_\ap\approx0.379540$.

935: 

936: \subsection{Correlations: Dynamics vs.~a priori ensemble}

937: 

938: Let us define the spin correlation function $C_n$

939: and the connected energy correlation function $G_n$ as

940: \beq

941: C_n=\dmean{\s_0\s_n},\quad

942: G_n=\dmean{\t_0\t_n}-E^2=\dmean{\s_0\s_1\s_n\s_{n+1}}-E^2.

943: \eeq

944: 

945: This section is devoted to a comparison between the exact

946: energy correlation function $G_n$

947: and the prediction of the refined a priori description.

948: It turns out that the spin correlation function $C_n$

949: is more difficult to handle,

950: both from the a priori and from the dynamical viewpoint.

951: 

952: The energy correlation function $(G_n)_\ap$

953: in the a priori ensemble at fixed energy density $E$

954: can again be evaluated by the transfer-matrix method.

955: We have, for~$n\ge0$ in the bulk of an infinitely long chain,

956: \beq

957: (G_n)_\ap

958: =\langle L_+\vert\En\vert R_-\rangle\langle L_-\vert\En\vert R_+\rangle

959: \left(\frac{\lam_-}{\lam_+}\right)^n.

960: \eeq

961: In this expression, $\En=\diag(-1,+1)$ is the energy operator, while

962: \beq

963: \langle L_\pm\vert=\frac{1}{\lam_\pm^2+1}\pmatrix{\lam_\pm&\e^\g},\quad

964: \vert R_\pm\rangle=\pmatrix{\e^\g\lam_\pm\cr1}

965: \eeq

966: are the left and right eigenvectors of $\T$

967: associated with the eigenvalues $\lam_\pm$.

968: We have consistently $\langle L_+\vert\En\vert R_+\rangle=E$.

969: After some algebra we obtain the following expression,

970: involving only the mean energy~$E$~\cite{ldt}:

971: \beq

972: (G_n)_\ap=(1-E^2)\left(-\frac{1+E}{1-E}\right)^n.

973: \label{cr}

974: \eeq

975: The connected energy correlation function in the a priori ensemble

976: thus exhibits an exponential fall-off, modulated by an oscillating sign.

977: 

978: The energy (i.e., occupancy, in the RSA language) correlation function

979: of the blocked configurations,

980: as they are generated by the zero-temperature dynamics,

981: has also been evaluated exactly~\cite{usrsa}.

982: Skipping again every detail, one has

983: \beq

984: (G_n)_\dyn

985: =2p\e^{-2p}\left((1-2p)\frac{(-2p)^n}{n!}

986: -2p\sum_{m\ge n+1}\frac{(-2p)^m}{m!}\right).

987: \label{cfinf}

988: \eeq

989: Whenever $p\ne1/2$, i.e., $T_0\ne\infty$,

990: the first term is leading, hence $(G_n)_\dyn\sim(-2p)^n/n!$.

991: In the case of an infinite initial temperature ($p=1/2$),

992: one has $(G_n)_\dyn\sim(-1)^n/(n+1)!$.

993: The connected energy correlations therefore exhibit a factorial decay,

994: modulated by an oscillating sign.

995: 

996: \section{Zero-temperature single-spin-flip dynamics in two dimensions:

997: Honeycomb vs.~square lattice}

998: \label{two}

999: 

1000: Leaving aside the one-dimensional realm,

1001: where exact analytical results are available,

1002: by means of an exact mapping of the dynamics onto an RSA problem,

1003: let us now turn to some novel results pertaining to two-dimensional examples

1004: of the zero-temperature single-spin-flip dynamics

1005: described in Section~\ref{gene}.

1006: We will investigate the following cases:

1007: 

1008: \begin{itemize}

1009: 

1010: \item

1011: {\it Honeycomb lattice}.

1012: The coordination number $z=3$ is odd,

1013: so that the standard zero-temperature dynamics~(\ref{wz}) is a descent dynamics.

1014: 

1015: \item 

1016: {\it Square lattice.}

1017: The coordination number $z=4$ is even,

1018: so that the situation is qualitatively similar to that of the chain.

1019: The dynamics~(\ref{wz}) is a bona fide coarsening dynamics

1020: for any non-zero value of the rate $W_0$,

1021: whereas the constrained dynamics ($W_0=0$) is a descent dynamics.

1022: 

1023: \end{itemize}

1024: 

1025: In the following we discuss in parallel

1026: the standard zero-temperature dynamics on the honeycomb lattice

1027: and the constrained one on the square lattice.

1028: Both dynamics lead to metastability:

1029: the system gets trapped in a finite time into one

1030: of many blocked configurations (zero-temperature metastable states).

1031: Figure~\ref{fighc} shows typical blocked configuration

1032: generated by both dynamics described above on samples of $150^2$ spins.

1033: 

1034: \begin{figure}[htb]

1035: \begin{center}

1036: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.48\linewidth]{figh.eps}

1037: {\hskip 1mm}

1038: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.48\linewidth]{figc.eps}

1039: \caption{\small

1040: Typical blocked configuration generated by the zero-temperature

1041: single-spin-flip dynamics considered here.

1042: Black (resp.~white) sites represent up (resp.~down) spins.

1043: Left: dynamics on the honeycomb lattice ($z=3$ is odd).

1044: Right: constrained dynamics on the square lattice ($z=4$ is even, $W_0=0$).}

1045: \label{fighc}

1046: \end{center}

1047: \end{figure}

1048: 

1049: \subsection{Distribution of the number of flips}

1050: 

1051: The constrained single-spin-flip dynamics on the Ising chain

1052: described in Section~\ref{chain} is fully irreversible,

1053: in the sense that every spin flips at most once

1054: during the whole history of the system,

1055: before a blocked configuration is reached.

1056: 

1057: In the present situation,

1058: although the two dynamics considered are descent dynamics in a global sense

1059: (the total energy decreases at each spin flip),

1060: a given spin can flip more than once.

1061: It turns out that the maximum number of flips is $M_\ca=2$

1062: for the constrained dynamics on the square lattice,

1063: and $M_\he=5$ for the dynamics on the honeycomb lattice.

1064: Skipping details,

1065: let us mention that these bounds can be derived by considering the number

1066: of unsatisfied bonds around the four squares,

1067: or the three hexagons, which surround a given spin.

1068: Figure~\ref{figflip} shows an example of a spin whose history

1069: contains this maximum number of flips in each case.

1070: The mean number of flips of a given spin remains however well below unity,

1071: at least for uncorrelated initial configurations.

1072: For dynamics on the honeycomb lattice,

1073: the mean number of flips is $\dmean{M}_\he\approx0.4244$,

1074: while the fraction of spins which flip five times

1075: is of order $p_\he(5)\sim10^{-8}$.

1076: For constrained dynamics on the square lattice,

1077: the mean number of flips is $\dmean{M}_\ca\approx0.2577$,

1078: while the fraction of spins which flip twice is $p_\ca(2)\approx0.00203$.

1079: 

1080: \begin{figure}[htb]

1081: \begin{center}

1082: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.5\linewidth]{bc.eps}

1083: \vskip 8mm

1084: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.5\linewidth]{bh.eps}

1085: \caption{\small

1086: Examples of histories such that a given spin $\s_0$

1087: experiences the maximum allowed number of flips.

1088: At each step the spin about to flip is circled.

1089: The letter F marks those steps where $\s_0$ is about to flip.

1090: Upper panel (left to right): square lattice:

1091: $\s_0$ (at center) flips $M_\ca=2$ times.

1092: Lower panel (top to bottom and left to right): honeycomb lattice:

1093: $\s_0$ (at bottom of uppermost hexagon) flips $M_\he=5$ times.}

1094: \label{figflip}

1095: \end{center}

1096: \end{figure}

1097: 

1098: \subsection{Distribution of the blocking time}

1099: 

1100: We have measured by means of numerical simulations

1101: the blocking time of finite samples of size $N\times N$

1102: for the descent dynamics on the honeycomb and square lattice described above,

1103: with uncorrelated random initial configurations.

1104: Figure~\ref{figtemps}

1105: shows a plot of the mean blocking time $\dmean{T_N}$ against the size

1106: (number of spins $N^2$) of the simulated samples.

1107: The data are well fitted by the form $\dmean{T_N}=a\ln N^2+b+c/N$.

1108: 

1109: This observation suggests that the late stages of the descent dynamics

1110: can again be described in an effective way

1111: by a dilute population of two-level systems,

1112: which relax independently of each other,

1113: with a common characteristic time $\t$,

1114: so that their density falls off exponentially, as $p(t)\sim\exp(-t/\t)$.

1115: Extreme-value statistics indeed implies

1116: \beq

1117: \dmean{T_N}\approx\t\ln N^2.

1118: \label{evs}

1119: \eeq

1120: The fits shown in Figure~\ref{figtemps} yield

1121: the characteristic times $\t_\he\approx2.49$ for the honeycomb lattice,

1122: and $\t_\ca\approx1.84$ for the square lattice.

1123: The fact that these estimates do not identify with simple numbers,

1124: together with the rather large observed correction to the result~(\ref{evs}),

1125: fitted by a $1/N$ term,

1126: suggests however that there might be more than one type of two-level systems.

1127: 

1128: \begin{figure}[htb]

1129: \begin{center}

1130: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.5\linewidth]{figtemps.eps}

1131: \caption{\small

1132: Plot of the mean blocking time $\dmean{T_N}$

1133: of zero-temperature single-spin-flip dynamics,

1134: against the number of spins $N^2$.

1135: Full symbols: standard dynamics on the honeycomb lattice.

1136: Empty symbols: constrained dynamics on the square lattice.

1137: Full lines: fits (see text) with asymptotic slopes

1138: $\t_\he\approx2.49$ and $\t_\ca\approx1.84$.}

1139: \label{figtemps}

1140: \end{center}

1141: \end{figure}

1142: 

1143: \subsection{Spin correlations}

1144: 

1145: We have measured the on-axis spin correlation function

1146: $C_n=\dmean{\s_\vecz\s_\vecn}$,

1147: where $\vecn$ denotes the site at distance $n$ lattice bonds

1148: from the origin $\vecz$ along one of the main axes

1149: of either lattice, and where $\dmean{\dots}$

1150: again denotes an average over the blocked configurations.

1151: The spin correlation at unit distance $C_1$

1152: is nothing but minus the mean energy density

1153: $E_\infty$ of the blocked configurations per bond.

1154: We obtain $(C_1)_\he=-(E_\infty)_\he\approx0.7485$ for the honeycomb lattice,

1155: and $(C_1)_\ca=-(E_\infty)_\ca\approx0.6126$ for the square lattice.

1156: 

1157: \begin{figure}[htb]

1158: \begin{center}

1159: \includegraphics[angle=90,width=.5\linewidth]{figcor.eps}

1160: \caption{\small

1161: Logarithmic plot of the on-axis spin correlation function

1162: $C_n$ against distance $n$.

1163: Full symbols: standard dynamics on the honeycomb lattice.

1164: Empty symbols: constrained dynamics on the square lattice.

1165: Full straight lines: least-square fits with inverse slopes

1166: $\xi_\he\approx1.27$ and $\xi_\ca\approx0.79$.}

1167: \label{figcor}

1168: \end{center}

1169: \end{figure}

1170: 

1171: Figure~\ref{figcor}

1172: shows a logarithmic plot of the on-axis spin correlation function,

1173: against distance $n$.

1174: The data at large enough distances are well fitted by straight lines,

1175: demonstrating that correlations fall off exponentially to zero,

1176: as $C_n\sim\exp(-n/\xi)$.

1177: The inverse slopes of the least-square fits yield

1178: $\xi_\he\approx1.27$ for the honeycomb lattice,

1179: and $\xi_\ca\approx0.79$ for the square lattice.

1180: 

1181: \section{Discussion}

1182: \label{dis}

1183: 

1184: The main focus of the present paper is on zero-temperature

1185: single-spin-flip dynamics of ferromagnetic Ising models.

1186: We have emphasized that there are two kinds of such dynamics.

1187: The first kind ($\I$--type dynamics, in the classification of~\cite{ns})

1188: generically corresponds to bona fide coarsening dynamics,

1189: and lead to phase ordering by domain growth,

1190: whereas the second kind ($\F$--type dynamics)

1191: corresponds to descent dynamics,

1192: and provides interesting examples of dynamical systems with many attractors.

1193: 

1194: The one-dimensional case has been reviewed in Section~\ref{chain}.

1195: The existence of an exact mapping of the constrained zero-temperature dynamics

1196: onto the dimer RSA problem opens up the possibility

1197: of an exact analytical evaluation of many dynamical observables,

1198: including characteristics of the attractors~\cite{usrsa}.

1199: The comparison between the exact results thus obtained

1200: and the predictions of the a priori ensemble

1201: allows to test the validity of the so-called Edwards hypothesis,

1202: in a regime which is very distant from the situation of gentle tapping,

1203: considered originally by Edwards.

1204: On the one hand, a flat average over the a priori ensemble of attractors

1205: (especially in its refined version,

1206: defined by imposing the value of the observed mean energy density)

1207: provides inexact, but numerically reasonable,

1208: predictions for physical quantities.

1209: The numerical accuracy of a priori predictions may even by very good,

1210: like e.g.~for the dynamical entropy (see Figure~\ref{figent}).

1211: On the other hand, the energy correlation function provides an example

1212: of a qualitative discrepancy between the actual behavior of attractors

1213: and the prediction of any a priori ensemble.

1214: Connected correlations indeed exhibit a factorial fall-off in $1/n!$

1215: with distance, which is a generic characteristic of lattice RSA problems,

1216: whereas any flat measure over an a priori ensemble

1217: can be described by the transfer-matrix formalism,

1218: and therefore leads to exponentially decaying correlations in one dimension.

1219: Another example of a qualitative discrepancy concerns the lengths

1220: of ordered clusters in one-dimensional spin models.

1221: Cluster lengths are automatically statistically independent

1222: and exponentially distributed in a priori ensembles,

1223: again as a consequence of the underlying transfer-matrix formalism,

1224: whereas both of these properties have been shown to be violated

1225: in several examples of zero-temperature dynamics~\cite{bfs,uskawa}.

1226: 

1227: Examples of zero-temperature dynamics

1228: on two-dimensional Ising models have then been investigated numerically.

1229: The full dynamics on the honeycomb lattice

1230: and the constrained one on the square lattice exhibit very similar features.

1231: The observed logarithmic growth of the mean blocking time suggests that

1232: the late stages of both examples of descent dynamics

1233: are dominated by the relaxation of independent

1234: two-level systems, in analogy with the one-dimensional situation.

1235: This mechanism, in turn, is rather suggestive that attractors are likely

1236: to have a non-trivial statistics.

1237: The quantitative comparison with uniform measures on a priori ensembles

1238: is far more difficult than in one dimension,

1239: because a priori ensembles themselves may possess phase transitions

1240: as a function of their density.

1241: In particular, the accurately observed exponential fall-off

1242: of spin correlations is not very informative in that respect.

1243: Finally, it is worth noticing that the metastable states

1244: put forward in a recent work on competitive cluster growth~\cite{lume}

1245: share many of the features of the present two-dimensional attractors.

1246: 

1247: To sum up this investigation of the statistics of attractors

1248: of zero-temperature descent dynamics in finite dimensions,

1249: it turns out that

1250: the so-called Edwards hypothesis does not hold in this context in general.

1251: The predictions of the a priori approach, however,

1252: often provide good numerical approximations.

1253: This picture is corroborated by a recent work by Camia~\cite{camia}.

1254: 

1255: \Bibliography{99}

1256: 

1257: \bibitem{ange}

1258: Angell C A 1995 Science {\bf 267} 1924

1259: 

1260: \bibitem{glassy}

1261: Barrat J L, Dalibard D, Feigelman M, and Kurchan J eds 2003

1262: {\it Slow Relaxations and Non\-equi\-li\-brium Dynamics in Condensed Matter}

1263: Proceedings of Les Houches Summer School Session LXXVII (Berlin: Springer)

1264: 

1265: \bibitem{gold}

1266: Goldstein M 1969 J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 51} 3728

1267: 

1268: \bibitem{tap}

1269: Thouless D J, Anderson P W, and Palmer R G 1977 Phil. Mag. {\bf 35} 593

1270: 

1271: \bibitem{ks}

1272: Kirkpatrick K and Sherrington D 1978 Phys. Rev. B {\bf 17} 4384

1273: 

1274: \bibitem{gs}

1275: Gaveau B and Schulman L S 1998 J. Math. Phys. {\bf 39} 1517

1276: 

1277: \bibitem{bir}

1278: Biroli G and Monasson R 2000 Europhys. Lett. {\bf 50} 155

1279: \nonum

1280: Biroli G and Kurchan J 2001 Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64} 016101

1281: 

1282: \bibitem{ldt}

1283: Dean D S and Lef\`evre A 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} 5639

1284: \nonum

1285: Lef\`evre A and Dean D S 2001 J. Phys. A {\bf 34} L213

1286: \nonum

1287: Lef\`evre A 2002 J. Phys. A {\bf 35} 9037

1288: \nonum

1289: Dean D S and Lef\`evre A 2001 Phys. Rev. E {\bf 64} 046110

1290: 

1291: \bibitem{prbr}

1292: Prados A and Brey J J 2001 J. Phys. A {\bf 34} L453

1293: 

1294: \bibitem{usrsa}

1295: De Smedt G, Godr\`eche C, and Luck J M 2002 Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 27} 363

1296: 

1297: \bibitem{gibbs}

1298: Gibbs J W 1906 {\it The Scientific Papers of J Willard Gibbs}

1299: (New York: Longmans, Green \& Co)

1300: \nonum

1301: Bumstead H A and Van Name R G eds 1961

1302: {\it The Scientific Papers of J Willard Gibbs} in 2 vols (New York: Dover)

1303: 

1304: \bibitem{ll}

1305: Landau L D and Lifshitz E M 1959 {\it Statistical Physics} (Oxford: Pergamon)

1306: \nonum

1307: Landau L D and Lifshitz E M 1960 {\it Electrodynamics of Continuous Media}

1308: (Oxford: Pergamon)

1309: 

1310: \bibitem{fisher}

1311: Fisher M E 1967 Physics {\bf 3} 255

1312: 

1313: \bibitem{langer}

1314: Langer J S 1967 Ann. Phys. {\bf 41} 108

1315: 

1316: \bibitem{frenkel}

1317: Frenkel J 1955 {\it Kinetic Theory of Liquids} (New York: Dover)

1318: 

1319: \bibitem{zinn}

1320: Zinn-Justin J 1989 {\it Quantum Field Theory and Critical Phenomena}

1321: (Oxford: Clarendon)

1322: 

1323: \bibitem{bustillos}

1324: Ticona Bustillos A, Heermann D W, and Cordeiro C E 2004 J. Chem. Phys.

1325: {\bf 121} 4804

1326: 

1327: \bibitem{sconf}

1328: J\"ackle J 1981 Phil. Mag. B {\bf 44} 533

1329: \nonum

1330: Palmer R G 1982 Adv. Phys. {\bf 31} 669

1331: 

1332: \bibitem{ktw}

1333: Kirkpatrick T R and Wolynes P G 1987 Phys. Rev. A {\bf 35} 3072

1334: \nonum

1335: Kirkpatrick T R and Thirumalai D 1987 Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36} 5388

1336: \nonum

1337: Kirkpatrick T R and Wolynes P G 1987 Phys. Rev. B {\bf 36} 8552

1338: \nonum

1339: Thirumalai D and Kirkpatrick T R 1988 Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38} 4881

1340: 

1341: \bibitem{sw}

1342: Stillinger F H and Weber T A 1982 Phys. Rev. A {\bf 25} 978

1343: \nonum

1344: Stillinger F H and Weber T A 1984 Science {\bf 225} 983

1345: 

1346: \bibitem{fv}

1347: Franz S and Virasoro M A 2000 J. Phys. A {\bf 33} 891

1348: 

1349: \bibitem{bm}

1350: Berg J and Mehta A 2001 Europhys. Lett. {\bf 56} 784

1351: \nonum

1352: Berg J and Mehta A 2001 Adv. Complex Syst. {\bf 4} 309

1353: 

1354: \bibitem{pbt}

1355: Prados A and Brey J J 2001 Phys. Rev. E {\bf 66} 041308

1356: 

1357: \bibitem{edwards}

1358: Edwards S F 1994 in {\it Granular Matter: An Interdisciplinary Approach}

1359: Mehta A ed (New York: Springer)

1360: 

1361: \bibitem{fdt}

1362: Cugliandolo L F and Kurchan J 1994 J. Phys. A {\bf 27} 5749

1363: \nonum

1364: Cugliandolo L F, Kurchan J, and Parisi G 1994 J. Phys. I (France) {\bf 4} 1641

1365: \nonum

1366: Cugliandolo L F, Kurchan J, and Peliti L 1997 Phys. Rev. E {\bf 55} 3898

1367: 

1368: \bibitem{ba}

1369: Barrat A, Kurchan J, Loreto V, and Sellitto M 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}

1370: 5034

1371: \nonum

1372: Barrat A, Kurchan J, Loreto V, and Sellitto M 2001 Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63} 051301

1373: 

1374: \bibitem{red}

1375: Spirin V, Krapivsky P L, and Redner S 2001 Phys. Rev. E {\bf 63} 036118

1376: \nonum

1377: Spirin V, Krapivsky P L, and Redner S 2002 Phys. Rev. E {\bf 65} 016119

1378: 

1379: \bibitem{ns}

1380: Nanda S, Newman C M, and Stein D L 2000 in {\it On Dobrushin's Way

1381: (from Probability Theory to Statistical Physics)} Dubrushin R L \etal eds

1382: Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. {\bf 198}

1383: \nonum

1384: Newman C M and Stein D L 2000 Physica A {\bf 279} 159

1385: \nonum

1386: Nanda S, Newman C M, and Stein D L 2004 preprint cond-mat/0411286

1387: 

1388: \bibitem{barc}

1389: Sollich P and Ritort F eds 2002 {\it Workshop on glassy behaviour

1390: of kinetically constrained models} J.~Phys. Cond. Matt. {\bf 14} 1381-1696

1391: 

1392: \bibitem{riso}

1393: Ritort F and Sollich P 2003 Adv. Phys. {\bf 52} 219

1394: 

1395: \bibitem{glau}

1396: Glauber R J 1963 J. Math. Phys. {\bf 4} 294

1397: 

1398: \bibitem{bray}

1399: Bray A J 1994 Adv. Phys. {\bf 43} 357

1400: 

1401: \bibitem{flory}

1402: Flory J P 1939 J. Am. Chem. Soc. {\bf 61} 1518

1403: 

1404: \bibitem{core}

1405: Cohen E R and Reiss H 1963 J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 38} 680

1406: 

1407: \bibitem{rsa}

1408: Evans J W 1993 Rev. Mod. Phys. {\bf 65} 1281

1409: 

1410: \bibitem{gumbel}

1411: Gumbel E J 1958 {\it Statistics of Extremes} (New York:

1412: Columbia University Press).

1413: 

1414: \bibitem{cri}

1415: Crisanti A, Ritort F, Rocco A, and Sellitto M 2000 J. Chem. Phys. {\bf 113}

1416: 10615

1417: 

1418: \bibitem{bfs}

1419: Berg J, Franz S, and Sellitto M 2002 Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 26} 349

1420: 

1421: \bibitem{baxter}

1422: Baxter R J 1982 {\it Exactly Solved Models in Statistical Mechanics}

1423: (London: Academic)

1424: 

1425: \bibitem{tm}

1426: Crisanti A, Paladin G, and Vulpiani A 1992

1427: {\it Products of Random Matrices in Statistical Physics}

1428: (Springer, Berlin, 1992)

1429: \nonum

1430: Luck J M 1992 {\it Syst\`emes d\'esordonn\'es unidimensionnels}

1431: in French (Saclay: Collection Al\'ea)

1432: 

1433: \bibitem{uskawa}

1434: De Smedt G, Godr\`eche C, and Luck J M 2003 Eur. Phys. J. B {\bf 32} 215

1435: 

1436: \bibitem{lume}

1437: Luck J M and Mehta A 2004 preprint cond-mat/0410385

1438: 

1439: \bibitem{camia}

1440: Camia F 2004 preprint cond-mat/0410543

1441: 

1442: \endbib

1443: \end{document}

1444: