text:
# Finite-Dimensional Spin Glasses: States, Excitations, and Interfaces

## 1 Introduction

In this talk, we focus on the following question: assuming that there exists in finite dimensions a low-temperature spin glass phase with broken spin-inversion symmetry, what are the relationships among the possible types of ground states that might be present, their low-energy excitations, and the interfaces that separate those states? Answering this question provides a handle on the broader nature of the low-temperature spin glass phase, if it exists.

While our results apply to a wide class of short-ranged models, we focus here for specificity on the Edwards-Anderson (EA) Ising model , with Hamiltonian:

$$_𝒥=\underset{<x,y>}{}J_{xy}\sigma _x\sigma _yh\underset{x}{}\sigma _x,$$
(1)
where $`x`$ is a site in a $`d`$-dimensional cubic lattice, $`\sigma _x=\pm 1`$ is the Ising spin at site $`x`$, $`h`$ is an external magnetic field, and the first sum is over nearest neighbor pairs of sites. To keep things simple, we take $`h=0`$ and the spin couplings $`J_{xy}`$ to be independent Gaussian random variables whose common distribution has mean zero and variance one. The absence of a field and the symmetry of the coupling distribution results in an overall global spin inversion symmetry. We denote by $`𝒥`$ a particular realization of the couplings, corresponding physically to a specific spin glass sample.

It is important to consider both equilibrium and nonequilibrium properties arising from (1), but we consider here only the former. We remain far from a comprehensive theory of the statistical mechanics of the EA Hamiltonian, but nonetheless there has in recent years been substantial analytical — and even some rigorous — progress in understanding what can and cannot occur in a putative low-temperature spin glass phase. In this talk we examine the relationships among three properties of this phase:

$``$ Interfaces between ground states. A ground state is an infinite-volume spin configuration whose energy cannot be lowered by the flip of any finite subset of spins. It can be constructed as the limit of a sequence of finite-volume ground states, i.e., the lowest-energy spin configuration(s) consistent with some boundary condition in a finite volume. The interface between two ground states is the set of all couplings that are satisfied in one and not the other.

$``$ Thermodynamic volume ($`V\mathrm{}`$) behavior.

$``$ Behavior in typical large finite volumes.

Our emphasis will be on the interconnectedness of these three: conclusions about any one can provide important information about the others. However, these relationships may not be at all straightforward; one theme emerging from our work is that they are far more complicated than in homogeneous systems.

## 2 ‘Observable’ vs. ‘Invisible’ States

How might one “see” the structure of the spin glass phase? There are several possible procedures. As in many other statistical mechanical problems, one can study the effects of a change in boundary conditions. Consider a cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ of side $`L`$ centered at the origin with periodic boundary conditions. There will a spin-flip-related pair of spin configurations within $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ of lowest energy. This finite-volume ground state pair will change in general with the boundary condition; for example, if one switches to antiperiodic boundary conditions, then there will be a new ground state pair with some interface relative to the old one.

One important question is whether such interfaces are pinned or deflect to infinity: if for any fixed $`L_0`$, the relative interface eventually moves (and stays) outside of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{L_0}`$ as $`L\mathrm{}`$, the interface has ‘deflected to infinity’; if it remains inside $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{L_0}`$, it is ‘pinned’ (for an illustration, see Fig. 2 of ). Pinned interfaces imply the existence of infinite-volume multiple ground state pairs.

More recent techniques are useful for studying excitations whose energies above a finite-volume ground state are of $`O(1)`$ independent of the volume size. Consider again a cube $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ with periodic boundary conditions. The method of Krzakala and Martin (KM)  is to choose an arbitrary pair of spins, and force them to have an orientation opposite to that in the ground state pair. The method of Palassini and Young (PY)  is to add a perturbation that lowers the energy of a spin configuration by an amount proportional to the fraction of bonds in an interface relative to the ground state pair. Either way, there will be a new spin configuration pair that minimizes the energy.

What these and most other widely-used procedures have in common is that they are not explicitly coupling-dependent; e.g., the boundary conditions used are independent of the coupling realization $`𝒥`$. We call ‘observable’ any interfaces (and resulting states) that can be constructed in this way; interfaces or states that can only be seen using coupling-dependent boundary conditions we call ‘invisible’. A detailed discussion of the reasons behind these designations is given in  (see also the discussion in Sec. 3 of ).

## 3 Interfaces

We now focus on interfaces separating spin configurations. The analysis is at $`T=0`$ but can be extended to nonzero temperature. That is, we confine our attention here to interfaces separating either different ground states or ground states and excitations. For now, we won’t worry how the interfaces arise: they might have arisen between ground states in a single volume under a switch from periodic to antiperiodic boundary conditions, or from using the KM or PY procedures, or through some other coupling-independent method. Our discussion below applies to all.

The main features we study include:

$``$ Spatial Structure. In other words, is the interface ‘space-filling’ or ‘zero-density’? By space-filling we mean the following. Consider in $`d`$ dimensions a sequence of cubes $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$, each containing an interface generated through a common procedure (e.g., switching from periodic to antiperiodic boundary conditions). If, for each $`L`$, the number of bonds in the interface scales as $`L^{d_s}`$ with $`d_s=d`$, then the interface is space-filling. If $`d_s<d`$, it is zero-density.

One of the interesting possibilities arising in spin glasses is the possibility of space-filling interfaces separating ground or pure states; such a possibility cannot arise, e.g., in ferromagnets. Space-filling interfaces (suitably redefined) are believed  to separate different pure states in the low-temperature phase of the infinite-ranged Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model .

$``$ Energetics. Spin glass interfaces can also have unusual energetic properties. In a ferromagnet, whether homogeneous or disordered, the energy of an interface scales linearly with the number of bonds comprising it. This is not necessarily so in a spin glass. One intriguing possibility is that — as happens in the SK model — an interface might have $`O(1)`$ energy independently of its size. The other possibility is that the energy of an interface in the volume $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_L`$ is $`O(L^\theta )`$, with $`\theta >0`$. (We ignore unlikely special cases such as logaritihmic and other non-power-law dependences.)

$``$ Pinning. A property crucial to the nature of states separated by an interface is whether the interface is pinned or deflects to infinity, as discussed in Sec. 2. As shown in , which of these occurs is not independent of the spatial structure, for interfaces separating observable states: a space-filling interface must be pinned, and a zero-density one (generated by a coupling-independent procedure) must deflect to infinity.

Each of these interface properties corresponds to a major scenario proposed for the low-temperature spin glass phase of the EA model in finite dimensions. This is summarized in Fig. 1, and each will be discussed in turn.

### 3.1 Mean-Field Picture

The picture arising from Parisi’s solution  of the infinite-ranged SK model is known as the replica symmetry breaking (RSB) theory. There have been many papers written in support of the notion that the RSB theory should apply as well to short-ranged spin glasses. We will not discuss all of RSB’s features here; given the subject of this talk, we focus on the prediction  of RSB theory that interfaces separating ground states are both space-filling and can have energies of $`O(1)`$, i.e., that don’t scale with the size of the system. Hence the designation ‘RSB interfaces’ in the upper left-hand corner of the table in Fig. 1.

A central result of  was a proof that the existence of space-filling interfaces (regardless of how their energies scale, as long as the interfaces are generated by coupling-independent methods) is a sufficient condition for the existence of multiple thermodynamic pure state pairs. In order to have a nontrivial overlap function (at nonzero temperature) of the sort characteristic of RSB theory , we have shown that the set of all states generated through sequences of finite-volume Gibbs states must partition into a union of thermodynamic mixed states $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, with each $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ being a nontrivial collection of infinitely many pure states with certain weights. Different $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s would appear in different finite volumes; for details, see . One can also prove that there must be an uncountable infinity of pure states in the union of all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$’s .

So in this picture the connections among the three properties listed in Sec. 1 is that RSB interfaces imply (and are implied by) this complex thermodynamic structure, and by nontrivial overlap structure in large finite volumes. However, thermodynamic arguments show  that this thermodynamic structure cannot be supported in finite-dimensional, short-ranged spin glasses, in turn ruling out the possibility that space-filling, $`O(1)`$ energy interfaces can arise in these systems.

### 3.2 Chaotic Pairs Picture

The upper right-hand corner of Fig. 1 raises the possibility of space-filling interaces whose energy scales as $`L^\theta `$, with $`\theta >0`$. (For reasons that won’t be discussed here, there is an upper bound  of $`\theta (d1)/2`$ for observable states.) This leads directly to the chaotic pairs picture  in which many pure state pairs exist, but only a single spin-reversed pair appears in any large finite volume, leading to a trivial overlap structure and no ultrametricity or related features of the RSB scenario.

### 3.3 Droplet/Scaling Picture

Continuing clockwise around the table in Fig. 1, we come to interfaces that are zero-density and with energy scaling as $`L^\theta `$, with $`\theta >0`$. These interfaces characterize droplet excitations in a two-state picture developed by Macmillan , Bray and Moore , and Fisher and Huse . This picture is well-known and won’t be discussed in detail here.

### 3.4 ‘TNT’ Picture

We come finally to the last entry, which conjectures interfaces that are both zero-density and whose energies remain $`O(1)`$ independently of lengthscale. This picture was proposed by Krzakala and Martin  (who denoted the picture ‘TNT’ for trivial link overlap and nontrivial spin overlap) and Palassini and Young . It can be shown that zero-density interfaces cannot separate observable pure or ground states , so these states, should they exist, would necessarily be excitations, as in the droplet-scaling picture.

## 4 Conclusion

The purpose of this talk has been to demonstrate that there are deep connections among the thermodynamic structure of spin glass states, their behavior in large finite volumes, and the interfaces that separate these states (and/or their excitations). Tools developed for any one can lead to strong conclusions about the other two. This interconnection has allowed substantial analytical, and even rigorous, progress on short-ranged spin glasses.

Acknowledgments. We thank the organizers of this conference, Daniel Iagolnitzer and Jean Zinn-Justin, for their invitation to speak and for their hard work in putting together a very enjoyable meeting.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In describing the chiral restoration transition at the critical temperature $`T_C`$ and/or critical density $`n_C`$, one of the essential ingredients is the relevant degrees of freedom that enter in the vicinity of the critical point. Depending upon what enters there, certain aspects of the phase transition scenario can be drastically different. These different scenarios will eventually be sorted out by experiments or by QCD simulations on lattice.

The standard way of looking at the problem at high temperature and low density currently accepted by the majority of the community as the “standard picture” is to assume that near the critical point, the only relevant low-lying degrees of freedom are the (psudo-)Goldstone pions and a scalar meson that in the $`SU(2)`$ flavor case, makes up the fourth component of the chiral four-vector of $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$. For the two-flavor case, one then maps QCD to an $`O(4)`$ universality class etc. Here lattice measurements will eventually map out the phase structure. On the contrary, at zero temperature and high density, the situation is totally unclear. In fact as density increases, the possibility is that one may not be able to talk about quasipartcles of any statistics at all: The concept of a hadron may even break down. Unfortunately lattice cannot help here, at least for now, because of the notorious sign problem.

The situation is markedly different if the vector manifestation à la Harada and Yamawaki  scenario is viable. In this picture, certain hadrons other than pions can play a crucial role in both high temperature and high density with a drastically different phase structure. In particular, light-quark vector mesons and constituent quarks (called quasiquarks from here on) can become the relevant degrees of freedom near the phase transition, becoming “sharper” quasiparticles even near the critical density, thereby increasing the number of degrees of freedom that enter from the hadronic sector, with – in sharp contrast to the standard picture – narrow-width excitations near the critical point. This can then lead to a form of phase change that is a lot smoother than that of the standard scenario.

The objective of my talk is to describe how this can happen.

## 2 The vector manifestation

To approach the chiral symmetry restored phase “bottom up” from the broken phase, we need an effective field theory (EFT) that represents as closely as possible the fundamental theory of strong interactions, QCD. In fact, according to Weinberg’s unproven theorem , QCD at low energy/momentum can be encapsulated in an effective field theory with a suitable set of colorless fields subject to the symmetries and invariance required by QCD. So the question is how to construct an EFT that captures the essence of QCD in describing the relevant physics at the phase transition. In order to do this, we first need to identify the scale at which we want to define our EFT and the relevant degrees of freedom and symmetries that we want to implement. I will consider two possibilities. One is the standard scenario based on linear sigma model that assumes that the only low-excitation degrees of freedom relevant to chiral restoration, apart from the nucleons, are the pions and possibly a scalar (denoted $`\sigma `$ in linear sigma model) with all other degrees of freedom integrated out. The other is the vector manifestation scenario based on hidden local symmetry (HLS) in which light-quark vector mesons figure crucially.

In this talk, we are principally interested in what new physics can be learned in the second scenario which seems to be currently ignored by the community in the field. We consider for definiteness the three-flavor case, i.e., $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ 111The two-flavor case is a bit more subtle and has not yet been fully worked out. I will leave that issue for later.. In going to nuclear matter and beyond in this scenario, we must keep vector-meson degrees of freedom $`explicit`$. This is because of the vector manifestation (VM)  for which vector degrees of freedom are indispensable. To understand the VM, we consider the HLS Lagrangian  in which the pion and vector mesons are the effective degrees of freedom 222HLS is essential for the VM since local gauge symmetry is required for doing a consistent chiral perturbation calculation in the presence of vector mesons. Other theories where local gauge symmetry is absent are moot on this issue. See  for a clear discussion on this point.. For the moment, we ignore fermions and heavier excitations as e.g., $`a_1`$, glueballs etc. To make the discussion transparent, we consider three massless flavors, that is, in the chiral limit 333Masses and symmetry breaking can be introduced with attendant complications. Up to date, the effects of quark masses have not been investigated in detail in this formalism. It is possible that the detail structure of the phase diagram can be substantially different from the chiral limit picture we are addressing here.. The relevant fields are the (L,R)-handed chiral fields $`\xi _{L,R}=e^{i\sigma /F_\sigma }e^{i\pi /F_\pi }`$ where $`\pi `$ is the pseudoscalar Goldstone boson field and $`\sigma `$ the Goldstone scalar field absorbed into the HLS vector field $`\rho _\mu `$, coupled gauge invariantly with the gauge coupling constant $`g`$. If one matches this theory to QCD at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ below the mass of the heavy mesons that are integrated out but above the vector ($`\rho `$) meson mass, it comes out – when the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$ vanishes as in the case of chiral restoration in the chiral limit – that

$`g(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})0,a(\overline{\mathrm{\Lambda }})F_\sigma /F_\pi 1.`$ (1)
Now the renormalization group analysis shows that $`g=0`$ and $`a=1`$ is the fixed point of the HLS theory and hence at the chiral transition, one approaches what is called the “vector manifestation” fixed point. The important point to note here is that this fixed point is approached regardless of whether the chiral restoration is driven by temperature $`T`$  or density $`n`$  or a large number of flavors . At the VM, the vector meson mass must go to zero in proportion to $`g`$, the transverse vectors decouple and the longitudinal components of the vectors join in a degenerate multiplet with the pions.

## 3 Vector and Axial-Vector Susceptibilities

As an illustration of what new features are encoded in the HLS/VM scenario, we first consider approaching the critical point in heat bath. We will come to the density problem later. Specifically consider the vector and axial vector susceptibilities defined in terms of Euclidean QCD current correlators as

$`\delta ^{ab}\chi _V`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}V_0^a(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})V_0^b(0,\stackrel{}{0})_\beta },`$ (2)
$`\delta ^{ab}\chi _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^3\stackrel{}{x}A_0^a(\tau ,\stackrel{}{x})A_0^b(0,\stackrel{}{0})_\beta }`$ (3)
where $`_\beta `$ denotes thermal average and

$`V_0^a\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi ,A_0^a\overline{\psi }\gamma ^0\gamma ^5{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^a}{2}}\psi `$ (4)
with the quark field $`\psi `$ and the $`\tau ^a`$ Pauli matrix the generator of the flavor $`SU(2)`$.

### 3.1 The standard (linear sigma model) scenario

The standard picture with pions figuring as the only degrees of freedom in heat bath has been worked out by Son and Stephanov . The reasoning and the result are both very simple and elegant. They go as follows.

If the pions are the only relevant degrees of freedom near the chiral transition, then the axial susceptibility (ASUS) for the system is encoded in the chiral Lagrangian of the form

$`_{eff}={\displaystyle \frac{f_{\pi }^{t}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4}}\left(\text{Tr}_0U_0U^{}v_\pi ^2\text{Tr}_iU_iU^{}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{\psi }\psi \mathrm{Re}M^{}U+\mathrm{}`$ (5)
where $`v_\pi `$ is the pion velocity, $`M`$ is the mass matrix introduced as an external field, $`U`$ is the chiral field and the covariant derivative $`_0U`$ is given by $`_0U=_0U\frac{i}{2}\mu _A(\tau _3U+U\tau _3)`$ with $`\mu _A`$ the axial isospin chemical potential. The ellipsis stands for higher order terms in spatial derivatives and covariant derivatives. Now given (5) as the $`full`$ effective Lagrangian which would be valid if it could be given in a local form as is, then the ASUS would take the simple form

$`\chi _A={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mu _A^2}}_{eff}|_{\mu _A=0}=f_{\pi }^{t}{}_{}{}^{2}.`$ (6)
Within the scheme, this is the $`entire`$ story: There are no other terms that contribute. That the ASUS is given solely by the square of the temporal component of the pion decay constant follows from the fact that the Goldstone bosons are the only relevant degrees of freedom in the system, with those degrees of freedom integrated out being totally unimportant. The effective theory of course cannot tell us what $`f_\pi ^t`$ is. However one can get it from lattice QCD. To do this, we exploit that at chiral restoration, the vector correlator and the axial correlator must be equal to each other, which means that

$`\chi _A|_{T=T_c}=\chi _V|_{T=T_c}.`$ (7)
Now from the lattice data of Gottlieb et al , we learn that

$`\chi _V|_{T=T_c}0`$ (8)
and hence from (6) that

$`f_\pi ^t0.`$ (9)
Next, we know that the space component of the pion decay constant $`f_\pi ^s`$ must go to zero at chiral restoration. This is because it should be related directly to the quark condensate $`\overline{q}q`$, i.e., the order parameter of the chiral symmetry of QCD. Thus one is led to the conclusion that at $`T=T_c`$ the velocity of the pion must be zero,

$`v_\pi f_\pi ^s/f_\pi ^t0\mathrm{as}TT_c.`$ (10)
That the pion velocity is zero at the critical point is both elegant and reasonable. It is analogous to the sound velocity in condensed matter physics which is known to go to zero on the critical surface. But the trouble is that there is a caveat here which throws doubt on the simple result. One might naively think that the vector susceptibility (VSUS) could also be described by the same local effective Lagrangian but with the covariant derivative now defined with the vector isospin chemical potential $`\mu _V`$ as $`_0U=_0U\frac{1}{2}\mu _V(\tau _3UU\tau _3)`$. If the local form of the $`effective`$ Lagrangian (5) is valid as well for the VSUS, one can do the same calculation as for $`\chi _A`$, i.e.,

$`\chi _V={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\mu _V^2}}_{eff}|_{\mu _V=0}.`$ (11)
Now a simple calculation shows that $`\chi _V=0`$ for all T. This is at variance with the lattice result. It is also unacceptable on general grounds. Thus either the local effective Lagrangian is grossly inadequate for the VSUS or else the assumption that the pions are the only relevant degrees of freedom is incorrect. Indeed, Son and Stephanov suggest that diffusive modes in hydrodynamic language that are not describable by a local Lagrangian can be responsible for the non-vanishing VSUS.

### 3.2 The HLS/VM scenario

The situation is dramatically different in the VM scenario . Both the hidden gauge fields and quasiquark fields enter importantly at the phase transition . The reason for this is that the masses of both tend to zero near the VM fixed point and hence they must enter on the same footing as the Goldstone pions.

In the HLS/VM scheme, the parameters of the effective Lagrangian are defined at the matching scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ in terms of the QCD parameters that encode the vacuum change in heat bath and/or dense medium. In computing physical observables like the current correlators, one takes into account both quantum loop effects that represent how the parameters run as the scale is changed from the matching scale to the physical (on-shell) scale $`and`$ thermal and/or dense loop effects induced in the renormalization-group flow. Now the former implies an $`intrinsic`$ temperature and/or density dependence in the parameters 444This dependence is missing in most of the effective field theory calculations that are based on effective Lagrangians determined in the matter-free and zero temperature vacuum. Most of the treatments found in the literature nowadays belong to this category. – called “parametric dependence.” The one-loop calculations in  show that both effects are governed by the VM fixed point at $`TT_c`$,

$`g0,a1.`$ (12)
The results  that follow from this consideration are

$`f_\pi ^t|_{T=T_c}=f_\pi ^s|_{T=T_c}=0,v_\pi |_{T=T_c}=1`$ (13)
and

$`\chi _A|_{T=T_c}=\chi _V|_{T=T_c}=2N_f\left[{\displaystyle \frac{N_f}{12}}T_c^2+{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{6}}T_c^2\right].`$ (14)
One can understand these results as follows. As $`TT_c`$, both $`f_\pi ^{t,s}`$ approach $`\overline{f}_\pi \overline{q}q`$ which approaches zero . At one loop, they approach the latter in such a way that the ratio goes to 1, thereby making the pion velocity approach the velocity of light. Both $`\chi _{V,A}`$ get contributions from the flavor gauge vector mesons and the quasiquarks whose masses approach zero and chiral symmetry forces them to become equal to each other. Since both the space and time components of the pion decay constant are vanishing, they do not figure in the formulas for the susceptibilities (14).

If realized, the VM scenario will present an interesting phase structure. It will give a phase diagram drastically different from the standard sigma model one. For instance, it would imply that there are a lot more degrees of freedom than the standard picture just below the critical temperature. We do not know how fast the masses actually drop as one approaches, bottom-up, the critical point but if the presently available lattice results are taken at their face value, then they do not seem to drop appreciably up to near $`T_c`$. But it is still possible that they drop to zero in a narrow window near the critical point in a way consistent with the VM and account for the rapid increase of energy density observed in the lattice calculations. In any event, that would provide a natural explanation of a smooth transition with a possible coexistence of excitations of various quantum numbers below and above $`T_c`$ as seems to be indicated by the MEM analysis of .

I must mention that there is a caveat here also. The results (13) and (14) are one-loop results and one may wonder whether two-loop or higher orders would not change the qualitative features. The space component of the pion decay constant is undoubtedly connected to the chiral order parameter, so remains zero to all orders but there is no general argument to suggest that the time part cannot receive non-vanishing contributions at higher orders. If it did, then we would fall back to the Son-Stephanov result of a vanishing pion velocity.

## 4 Multiplet structure

The multiplet structure of hadrons implied by the VM at the phase transition at $`T=T_c`$ or $`n=n_c`$ or $`N_f=N_f^c`$ is basically different from that of the standard one based on linear sigma model. Continuing with three flavors in the chiral limit, at the phase transition where the VM is realized, the longitudinal components of the vector mesons $`\rho _{}`$ join the $`(1,8)(8,1)`$ multiplet of the Goldstone pions and the transverse vectors, massless, decouple from the system as the gauge coupling vanishes. This contrasts with the linear sigma model picture where a scalar joins the Goldstone pions in $`(3,3^{})(3^{},3)`$ multiplets. If one were to explicitly incorporate the $`a_1`$ vector mesons and the scalar meson in the scheme (so far integrated out), then the $`a_1`$ would be in the same multiplet $`(3,3^{})(3^{},3)`$ with the scalar in the VM while in the standard picture, the $`a_1`$ would be in the multiplet $`(1,8)(8,1)`$ with the vectors $`\rho `$.

As stressed by Harada and Yamawaki, physically there is no sense to be on the VM point. It makes sense only to $`approach`$ it from below. One can however ask what happens precisely at the VM. Since the VM is in the Wigner mode, one may wonder whether the decoupled vector mesons should not have chiral partners. If they should, then the HLS/VM would be in difficulty since the theory does not contain such chiral partners in the same multplet. The only way that I see to avoid this obstruction is that the transverse vectors become “singlet” under chiral transformation. This can be made possible if the chiral transition is considered as the flavor vector mesons getting de-Higgsed to the color gauge bosons, i.e., gluons, as proposed by Wetterich . Specifically one can think of the flavor vector mesons as the vectors excited in the color-flavor locking (CFL) transition

$`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R\times SU(3)_cSU(3)_{L+R+c}`$ (15)
in analogy to the CFL in color superconductivity in QCD at asymptotic density. In this case, the flavor vectors un-lock the color and flavor and turn in a sort of relay  into the color gauge vector mesons. This phenomenon can be summarized by writing

$`\xi _{L(R)i}^\alpha =[\xi _{L(R)}v]_i^a,U=\xi _L^{}\xi _R`$ (16)
in terms of a color-singlet $`\xi `$ field and a $`vSU(3)_C`$, both of which are unitary. One can then relate  the vector meson fields $`\rho _\mu `$ and the baryon fields $`B`$, to the gluon fields $`A_\mu `$ and the quark fields $`\psi `$ as

$`B`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\psi ^{1/2}\xi ^{}\psi v^{},`$
$`\rho _\mu `$ $`=`$ $`v(A_\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{g}}_\mu )v^{}`$ (17)
where $`Z_\psi `$ is the quark wave function renormalization constant. This CF unlocking scenario appears to be highly appealing and fascinating. Up to date, however, this idea has not been fully worked out – the mechanism for CFL and CF-unlocking is not known – and although quite plausible, it is not proven yet that it is not inconsistent with the known structure of QCD. It remains to be investigated.

## 5 Evidences for the VM?

The VM prediction is clean and unambiguous for $`SU(3)_L\times SU(3)_R`$ chiral symmetry in the chiral limit at the chiral restoration point. At present, there are no lattice measurements that would validate or invalidate this picture. Are there experimental indications that Nature exploits this scheme?

So far, there are no indications from relativistic heavy-ion processes as to whether the VM is realized in the vicinity of the critical temperature or density. So to answer this question, one would have to work out what happens at temperatures and/or densities away from the critical point. One would also have to consider two-flavor cases and quark mass terms to make contact with Nature. To do all these is a difficult task and no theoretical work has been done up to date on this matter. What is available up to date are some indications in nuclear systems at low temperature. Nuclei involve many nucleons in the vicinity of nuclear matter density and the density regime involved here is rather far from the density relevant to the VM. Thus we are compelled to invoke a certain number of extrapolations toward the VM point. Near nuclear matter density, however, we have a many-body fixed point known as “Fermi-liquid fixed point”  which involves quantum critical phenomenon and this makes the connection to the VM tenuous even when one is at a much higher density.

To make progress in this circumstance, we have to make a rather drastic simplification of the phase structure. Here we will adopt what is called “double-decimation approximation”  which consists of (1) extrapolating downwards from the VM to the Fermi-liquid fixed point and (2) extrapolating upwards from the zero-density regime where low-energy theorems apply to the Fermi-liquid fixed point at nuclear matter density. The spirit here is close to BR scaling proposed in 91 .

Close to the VM, the vector meson mass must go to zero in proportion to $`g`$. Specifically

$`m_\rho ^{}/m_\rho g^{}/g\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q0`$ (18)
as the transition point $`n=n_c`$ is reached. One can understand this as follows. Near the critical point the “intrinsic term” $`g^{}F_\pi ^{}`$ in the vector mass formula drops to zero faster than the dense loop term that goes as $`g^{}H(n)`$ where $`H`$ is a slowly (i.e., logarithmically) varying function of density. So the dense loop term controls the scaling. Now it seems to be a reasonable thing to assume that $`near`$ the VM fixed point, we have the scaling

$`m_\rho ^{}/m_\rho g^{}/g\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q.`$ (19)
Our conjecture  is that this holds down to near nuclear matter density.

Let us now turn to the low-density regime, that is, a density below nuclear matter density. At near zero density, one can apply chiral perturbation theory with a zero-density HLS Lagrangian matched to QCD at a scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M\mathrm{\Lambda }_\chi `$. We expect to have

$`m_\rho ^{}/m_\rho f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi \sqrt{\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q}.`$ (20)
This result follows from an in-medium GMOR relation for the pion if one assumes that at low density the pion mass does not scale (as indicated experimentally ), that the vector meson mass is dominantly given by the “intrinsic term” $`\sqrt{a}F_\pi g`$ with small loop corrections that can be ignored and that the gauge coupling constant does not get modified at low density (as indicated by chiral models and also empirically). The double-decimation approximation is to simply assume that this relation holds from zero density up to nuclear matter density . Note that we are essentially summarizing the phase structure up to chiral restoration by two fixed points, namely, the Fermi-liquid fixed point and the vector-manifestation fixed point. Here we are ignoring the possibility that there can be other phase changes, such as kaon condensation (or hyperon matter), color superconductivity etc. which can destroy the Fermi liquid structure before chiral symmetry is restored.

The one important feature that distinguishes the HLS/VM theory from other EFTs is the $`parametric`$ dependence on the background of the “vacuum” – density and/or temperature – which intricately controls the fixed point structure of the VM. At low density, this dependence is relatively weak, so hard to pinpoint. But in precision experiments, it should be visible. One such case is the recent experiment of deeply bound pionic atoms. For this, we can consider a chiral Lagrangian in which only the nucleon and pion fields are kept explicit with the vectors and other heavy hadron degrees of freedom integrated out from the HLS/VM Lagrangian. The relevant parameters of the Lagrangian are the “bare” nucleon mass, the “bare” pion mass, the “bare” pion decay constant, the “bare” axial-vector coupling and so on which depend non-trivially on the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ and density $`n`$. This Lagrangian takes the same form as the familiar one apart from the $`intrinsic`$ dependence of the parameters on $`n`$. (In the usual approach, the scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ is fixed at the chiral scale and the dependence on $`n`$ is absent). As shown by Harada and Yamawaki , the local gauge symmetry of HLS Lagrangian enables one to do a systematic chiral perturbation theory even when massive vectors are present. Since the vectors are integrated out, the power counting will be the same as in the conventional approach. Now if the density involved in the system is low enough, say, no greater than nuclear matter density, then one could work to leading order in chiral expansion. Suppose that one does this to the (generalized) tree order. To this order, the parameters of the Lagrangian can be identified with physical quantities. For instance, the bare pion decay constant $`F_\pi `$ can be identified with the physical constant $`f_\pi `$, the parametric pion mass with the physical pion mass $`m_\pi `$ etc. Now in the framework at hand, the only dependence in the constants on density will then be the $`intrinsic`$ one determined by the matching to QCD immersed in the background of density $`n`$.

If we apply the above argument to the recent measurement by Suzuki et al  of deeply bound pionic atom systems, we will find that the measurement supplies information on the ratio $`f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi `$ at a density $`n<n_0`$. There is a simple prediction for this quantity . We have from (20)

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(n)f_\pi ^{}/f_\pi \sqrt{\overline{q}q^{}/\overline{q}q}.`$ (21)
Instead of calculating the quark condensate in medium which is a theoretical construct, we can extract the in-medium pion decay constant by extracting $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from experiments. Indeed, the scaling $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has been obtained from nuclear gyromagnetic ratio in . At nuclear matter density, it comes out to be

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(n_0)=0.78`$ (22)
with an uncertainty of $`10\%`$. Thus it is predicted that

$`(f_\pi ^{}(n_0)/f_\pi )_{th}^20.61.`$ (23)
This agrees with the value extracted from the pionic atom data of ,

$`(f_\pi ^{}(n_0)/f_\pi )_{exp}^2=0.65\pm 0.05.`$ (24)
It is perhaps important to stress that this “agreement” cannot be taken as an evidence for “partial chiral restoration” as one often sees stated in the literature. If one were to go to higher orders in chiral expansion, the $`parametric`$ pion decay constant cannot be directly identified with the physical pion decay constant since the latter should contain two important corrections, i.e., quantum corrections governed by the renormalization group equation as the scale is lowered from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ to the physical scale and dense loop corrections generated by the flow. At chiral restoration, it is this latter that signals the phase transition: The parametric pion decay constant with the scale fixed at the matching scale does not go to zero even at the chiral restoration point . Thus when one does a higher-order chiral perturbation calculation of the same quantity, one has to be careful which quantity one is dealing with.

What one can say with some confidence is that (23) goes in the right direction in the context of BR scaling.

A variety of other evidences that lend, albeit indirect, support to the scaling  and in consequence to the notion of the VM are discussed in . If the VM were verified by going near the chiral transition point, it would constitute a nice illustration of how the mass of the hadrons making up the bulk of ordinary matter around us is made to “disappear,” a deep issue in physics .

### Acknowledgments

I have benefitted from numerous discussions with Gerry Brown, Masayasu Harada, Youngman Kim and Koichi Yamawaki.


text:
# Hierarchically Organized Minority Games

## 1 INTRODUCTION

In this paper a simple, single-level strategic game, namely the Minority Game (MG), will be extended to form a hierarchical organization. The individual MGs will form a group, and individual players within each MG will make decisions which depend on the average behavior of their own and other MGs. Calculations show that under certain conditions the elements of the individual MGs “know” much more about each other than one would expect.

"…Hierarchical organization is a common way to structure a group of people, where members chiefly communicate with their immediate superior and with their immediate subordinates. Structuring organizations in this way is useful partly because it can reduce the communication overhead." .

One of the most interesting questions in the theory of hierarchical systems is how much information a subsystem has about the performance of the whole. In addition to study this problem the top-down influence of the "whole" system to the elements will also be quantitatively studied.

## 2 HIERARCHICAL EXTENSION of MG

MG is a simple model of inductively rational systems . This game is a system of $`N`$ interacting agents. Each agent brings a decision $`a_i(s_i(t),\mu (t))`$ between $`+1`$ and $`1`$ based on her $`s_i(t)`$ strategy and the knowledge of the history of the game $`\mu (t)`$. In all simulations each agent chooses from one of two stategies which are randomly chosen for each agent in the beginning of the game. A strategy is a look-up table which assigns the actual choice to the M component vector $`\mu (t)`$ of the previous M outcome signs, $`sgn(A(t))`$. $`A(t)`$ is defined as $`A(t)=_ia_i(s_i(t),\mu (t))`$. Each agent chooses the $`s^{th}`$ strategy from the possible ones with probability

$$Prob\{s_i\left(t\right)=s\}=Z_ie^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_iU_{is}\left(t\right)}$$
(1)
Where $`Z_i^1=_s^{}e^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_iU_{is^{}}\left(t\right)}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is the inverse temperature, and the performance of the $`i^{th}`$ agent’s $`s^{th}`$ strategy is evaluated by a cumulative score $`U_{is}(t)`$. The updating rule for the evaluation:

$$U_{is}\left(t+1\right)=U_{is}\left(t\right)a_i(s_i(t),\mu (t))A(t)$$
(2)
The second term represents the gain of the individual agents.

The original model is extended to form a hierarchical structure. This extension is done in the following way. $`N^{}`$ original MGs are connected into a new MG, where the original MGs are the agents of this new game. In this hierarchical organization there are $`N^{}`$ ($`j=1\mathrm{}N^{}`$) original MGs, in each of which $`N`$ ($`i=1\mathrm{}N`$) (low level) agents play and where their decision is $`a_{ij}(s_{ij}(t),\mu _j(t))`$. We use $`\mu _j`$ since each local MG’s history contains the local and global minority sign hence it is different for every local MG. For simplicity we will denote $`a_{ij}(s_i(t),\mu _j(t))`$ by $`a_{ij}\left(t\right)`$.

In each low level MG we have an outcome minority sign, $`sgn(A_j)`$. From the set of these signs a global sum and a minority sign, is defined as $`A=_jsgn(A_j)`$ and $`sgn(A)`$. Thus the score updating dynamics of the strategies are modified as:

$$U_{ijs}(t+1)=U_{ijs}(t)a_{ij}(t)\left(A_j(t)+C\underset{k}{}sgn\left(A_k(t)\right)\right),$$
(3)
The constant, $`C`$, expresses the ratio of the contribution of the local and global environments. The local environment consists of the agents playing in the original MG, while the global one is derived from the connection of the MGs. The game among the MGs, however, differs from the original. The MGs, as individual agents, don’t have strategies and memories explicitly. Instead the global connection between the MGs is made only through their low level agents.

When $`C0`$ we obtain the original definition. It is often assumed in the theory of hierarchical structures that the local interactions should be much stronger than the global ones . However, the violation of this assumption implies non-trivial results.

In the context of MG for values of $`C`$ when the global interactions are stronger than the local ones, the agents don’t choose a strategy to maximize their own winning chance only, but also to help their whole group win against other groups.

To be able to analyze our extended multilevel model, we will decompose it into three subsystems. Each subsystem contains binary interlayer interactions only, as shown in Fig.(1). The characteristic quantities, namely the global efficiency and the degree of symmetry, will be properly redefined.

## 3 RESULTS

### 3.1 Interactions between the elementary and intermediate levels

The new additive part of Eq.(3) is the same for every elementary participant, therefore we expect that the normalized global “waste” $`\sigma _j^2/N`$ averaged over the $`N^{}`$ MG’s (denoted by $`<\sigma _j^2/N>_N^{}`$) will show the same characteristic pattern as in the original game. A small value of the waste implis a high value of efficiency.

By this extension, however, the total payoff of the $`j^{th}`$ MG $`u_j=A_j^2A_jA`$ might be greater than zero, and thus it is no longer a "negative sum game".

Fig.(2) shows the results of the comparative studies between the original and the special features of the extended game by calculating $`\sigma _j^2`$ using the equation

$$\sigma _j^2\overline{A_j^2}=\underset{\mu _j=1}{\overset{P_{em}}{}}\rho ^{\mu _j}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ij}(t)A_j^{\mu _j}(t)\right)^2$$
(4)
where $`P_{em}=2^M`$ is the number of possible memory states, $`\rho ^{\mu _j}`$ is the probability of occurrence of the $`\mu `$th state in the $`j`$th MG. The $`\mathrm{}`$ refers to the averaging over the possible strategies and the overline stands for the averages over the memory states.

The left part of Fig. 2 refers to the case of $`C=1/N^{}`$ for various values of $`N^{}`$. Simulations show that the average of $`\sigma _j^2/N`$ deviates from that obtained in the original game, but the deviation does not depend on the value of $`N^{}`$. In the right part of Fig.(2) ($`C=1`$), the average of $`\sigma _j^2/N`$ differs not only from the original characteristics, but is different for each value of $`N^{}`$. It is easy to understand this dependence on $`N^{}`$, because the additive part in Eq.(3) does not implement any normalization. (The order of magnitude of the new additive factor is $`o(NN^{})`$, while the original part of Eq.(3) is just $`o(N)`$. For larger values of our new additive part (which is proportional to $`N^{}`$) and by the definition of MG we obtain larger values of $`\sigma _j^2/N`$ than one would see in the original game.

A more striking result was obtained for the behavior of the symmetry between the two minority signs. Fig.(3) plots the degree of asymmetry ($`\theta _j^2`$) as a function of $`\alpha _N`$ (left) and $`C`$ (right), respectively. The asymmetry is defined by

$$\theta _j=\sqrt{\frac{1}{P_{em}}\underset{\mu _j=1}{\overset{P_{em}}{}}sgn(A_j(t))|\mu _j^2}$$
(5)
where $`sgn(A_j(t))|\mu _j`$ is the conditional probability of $`sgn(A_j(t))`$ conditioned on $`\mu _j`$.

Our numerical results show that the system nowhere became symmetrical for the two signs. Indeed in Fig.(3) we can see that for various $`C`$s and $`N^{}`$s we obtain the same characteristics reflecting that there is no phase transition in the system with the parameters we investigated. The tendency of the change occurs more slowly than in the original game. The difference appears because our subsystems are not closed because of the interaction between the MGs. Though there exists an ‘optimal strategy’ where the symmetrical phase should appear, it’s efficiency is very low.

### 3.2 Interactions between the middle and upper levels

Our naive expectation is to find ’random players,’ i.e. players who select their strategies randomly, because the choices of the middle level players are just the results of minority games of the lower level. These ’choices’ cannot be interpreted as the results of ’decisions’ because the middle level does not have any direct memories or strategies. They are only mean field averages over the individual MGs. Although the lack of memory implies the break down of the definition of the original scaled parameter, $`\alpha _N`$, we still found this quantity to be useful.

We define the waste $`\sigma _{mu}^2`$ in terms of the variation in each of the middle level games ($`mu`$ is the symbolic notation of ”between middle and upper”). Explicitly, we have

$$\sigma _{mu}^2\overline{A^2}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}\underset{\mu _j=1}{\overset{P_{em}}{}}\rho ^{\mu _j}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}sgn\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ij}(t)A_i^{\mu _j}(t)\right)A(t)\right)^2$$
(6)
Note that the last term of Eq.(6) depends on $`N^{}`$. The lack of normalization will not have any effect, because we are only interested in the sign of the sum of the local agents’ performance.

The simulation results reflect the expectations discussed above. For those values of $`C`$ which implement larger local connections within an MG than to the global one ($`C=1/N^{}`$) the system shows random behavior (Fig.4 left). When the global connection gets stronger, i.e. $`C=1`$, the system shows an emergent coordination , i.e. the system as a whole shows a different than random performance. Fig.(4) (right) shows positive and not negative deviation from the random performance. This phenomenon is the result of the interaction of the two minority games.

### 3.3 Interactions between the elementary and upper levels

In this case we could ask whether there is any direct connection between the elementary and upper levels. Here we calculated different globally averaged functions $`\sigma _{eu}`$ and $`\theta _{eu}^2`$ (where $`eu`$ the symbolic notation of ”between elementary and upper”). We define

$$\sigma _{eu}^2\overline{A^2}=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{P_{eu}}{}}\rho ^\mu \left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N^{}}{}}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}a_{ij}(t)A^\mu (t)\right)^2$$
(7)
First, we note that there is now another scaled parameter. For $`P_{eu}=(2^{\frac{M}{2}})^{N^{}+1}`$ possible states of the system the new scaled parameter is $`\alpha _{N,N^{}}=\frac{P_{eu}}{NN^{}}`$. And $`\mu `$ refers to the state of the whole system (i.e. $`\rho ^\mu _{j=1}^N^{}_{\mu _j=1}^{P_{em}}\rho ^{\mu _j}`$).

In these numerical simulations (Fig.(5)) the results are qualitatively the same. (Without normalization the value of $`\sigma _{eu}^2/(NN^{})`$ increases for greater values of $`N^{}`$.)

Another interesting result of our investigation is the symmetry at this level. One might believe that $`\theta _{eu}^2`$ would not depend on either $`N^{}`$ or $`C`$, explicitly. However, the simulation result (Fig.6) still shows some dependence on $`N^{}`$ and $`C`$.

## 4 Discussion

We studied a hierarchical extension of the MG for three levels and studied the inter-level interactions. First, the local MGs, i.e. the connections between the lower and middle layers were studied. It was interesting to see that for the ratio $`C=1`$ the global efficiency depends on the number of individual MGs. By using this formula the individual agents know the number of all MGs. In addition, at least in a broad region of the parameters, the degree of symmetry is never zero. Consequently, in contrast to the original game, there always exists an optimal strategy for winning the game.

Second, the connections between the intermediate and the upper levels were investigated. For the case of relatively strong local connections, the system seems to behave randomly. For strong global coupling the behavior deviates from random behavior, and shows a self-organized global behavior, which can be considered a special type of ’emergent coordination.’

Finally, the results of the study of the connections between the lower and the upper level also exhibits the property seen previously: for the case of $`C=1`$ the global efficiency depends on the number of games. In addition, the global efficiency shows interesting dependences both on the values of the ratio number, and on the number of games. In the future we intend to investigate these dependences analytically.

## 5 Acknowledgments

We thank Jan Tobochnik for carefully reading our manuscript and providing helpful suggestions. This research was supported by OTKA T038140, and AKP 2000-148 2,3. Special thanks to the Henry Luce Foundation for support.


text:
# Comment on “Quantum mechanics of smeared particles”

## Abstract

In a recent article, Sastry has proposed a quantum mechanics of smeared particles. We show that the effects induced by the modification of the Heisenberg algebra, proposed to take into account the delocalization of a particle defined via its Compton wavelength, are important enough to be excluded experimentally.

The idea to represent a particle not as an idealized point particle but instead as a smeared particle is not new, but recently a subtle way to introduce this smearing has been proposed. This formalism, used in Ref.  with some modifications, was first developed by Kempf et al. . The idea is to modify the commutation relations between position and momentum (the Heisenberg algebra) to introduce a new short-distance structure characterized by a finite minimal uncertainty $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_0`$ in position measurements. The existence of this minimal observable length is suggested by quantum gravity and string theory . In this context, the new short distance behaviour would arise at the Planck scale, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_0`$ would correspond to a fundamental quantity closely linked with the structure of space-time . Kempf has suggested that this formalism could also be used to describe, as an effective theory, non-pointlike particles like hadrons, quasi-particles or collective excitations . In this case, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_0`$ is interpreted as a parameter linked with the structure of these particles and their finite size; no attempt is performed to give an explicit link between this parameter and some fundamental property of the particle: it is considered as a free parameter.

In a recent article, Sastry suggests that the deformation parameter of the Heisenberg algebra is given by the Compton wavelength of the particle . He points out that in the case of the hydrogen atom, and in general in the quantum theory of atoms, the quantum mechanics of point particles gives an accurate description because the characteristic size of the smearing of the electron (the Compton wavelength) is $`\alpha `$ (the fine structure constant) times smaller than the characteristic size of the atom $`a_0`$ (the Bohr radius). Even if this assertion is correct the effects of this smearing of the electron are still too large and can be excluded by comparison between standard theoretical calculation and experimental data.

The modification of the energy level positions of the hydrogen atom introduced by the use of the new commutation relations between position and momentum has been evaluated to first order in Ref. . The order of magnitude of the correction is given by $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x_0)^2m^3\alpha ^4`$, where $`m`$ is the mass of the electron ($`\mathrm{}=c=1`$). The use of the Compton wavelength as the deformation parameter of the Heisenberg algebra, $`\mathrm{\Delta }x_01/m`$, leads to a correction of the same order ($`10^3`$ eV) as the first relativistic kinematic and the spin-orbit corrections (which describe the fine structure of the hydrogen energy levels) and is thus two orders of magnitude larger than the Lamb shift and hyperfine structure corrections (see for example ). The agreement between standard theory and experiment is about 1 MHz ($`10^8`$ eV) for the Lamb Shift of the 1S state  and about 0.1 MHz for the hyperfine structure of the 1S state (the famous 21cm hyperfine transition). This excellent agreement definitely excludes the proposal of Sastry.