Glassy interfacial dynamics of Ni nanoparticles: Part II Discrete breathers as an explanation of two-level energy fluctuations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies of the dynamics of diverse condensed amorphous materials have indicated significant heterogeneity in the local mobility and a progressive increase in collective particle motion upon cooling that takes the form of string-like particle rearrangements. In a previous paper (Part I), we examined the possibility that fluctuations in potential energy E and particle mobility μ associated with this ‘dynamic heterogeneity’ might offer information about the scale of collective motion in glassy materials based on molecular dynamics simulations of the glassy interfacial region of Ni nanoparticles (NPs) at elevated temperatures. We found that the noise exponent associated with fluctuations in the Debye–Waller factor, a mobility related quantity, was directly proportional to the scale of collective motion L under a broad range of conditions, but the noise exponent associated with E(t) fluctuations was seemingly unrelated to L. In the present work, we focus on this unanticipated difference between potential energy and mobility fluctuations by examining these quantities at an atomic scale. We find that the string atoms exhibit a jump-like motion between two well-separated bands of energy states and the rate at which these jumps occur seems to be consistent with the phenomenology of the ‘slow-beta’ relaxation process of glass-forming liquids. Concurrently with these local E(t) jumps, we also find ‘quake-like’ particle displacements having a power-law distribution in magnitude so that particle displacement fluctuations within the strings are strikingly different from local E(t) fluctuations. An analysis of these E(t) fluctuations suggests that we are dealing with ‘discrete breather’ excitations in which large energy fluctuations develop in arrays of non-linear oscillators by virtue of large anharmonicity in the interparticle interactions and discreteness effects associated with particle packing. We quantify string collective motions on a fast caging timescale (picoseconds) and explore the significance of these collective motions for understanding the Boson peak of glass-forming materials.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".