Fractal Dimension of Interfaces in Edwards-Anderson and Long-range Ising Spin Glasses: Determining the Applicability of Different Theoretical Descriptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fractal dimension of excitations in glassy systems gives information on the critical dimension at which the droplet picture of spin glasses changes to a description based on replica symmetry breaking where the interfaces are space filling. Here, the fractal dimension of domain-wall interfaces is studied using the strong-disorder renormalization group method pioneered by Monthus [Fractals 23, 1550042 (2015)FRACEG0218-348X10.1142/S0218348X15500425] both for the Edwards-Anderson spin-glass model in up to 8 space dimensions, as well as for the one-dimensional long-ranged Ising spin-glass with power-law interactions. Analyzing the fractal dimension of domain walls, we find that replica symmetry is broken in high-enough space dimensions. Because our results for high-dimensional hypercubic lattices are limited by their small size, we have also studied the behavior of the one-dimensional long-range Ising spin-glass with power-law interactions. For the regime where the power of the decay of the spin-spin interactions with their separation distance corresponds to 6 and higher effective space dimensions, we find again the broken replica symmetry result of space filling excitations. This is not the case for smaller effective space dimensions. These results show that the dimensionality of the spin glass determines which theoretical description is appropriate. Our results will also be of relevance to the Gardner transition of structural glasses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".