4.6 Article

Ground-state topology of the Edwards-Anderson ±J spin glass model

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW B
Volume 82, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevB.82.214401

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. CONICET (Argentina) [PIP112-200801-01332]
  2. National Agency of Scientific and Technological Promotion (Argentina) [33328 PICT-2005, 2185 PICT-2007]
  3. Chilean agency Fondecyt [1100156]
  4. Chilean agency Millennium Scientific Nucleus Basic and Applied Magnetism [P06-022-F]
  5. Chilean agency Center for the Development of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Cedenna

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In the Edwards-Anderson model of spin glasses with a bimodal distribution of bonds, the degeneracy of the ground state allows one to define a structure called backbone, which can be characterized by the rigid lattice (RL), consisting of the bonds that retain their frustration (or lack of it) in all ground states. In this work we have performed a detailed numerical study of the properties of the RL, both in two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) lattices. Whereas in 3D we find strong evidence for percolation in the thermodynamic limit, in 2D our results indicate that the most probable scenario is that the RL does not percolate. On the other hand, both in 2D and 3D we find that frustration is very unevenly distributed. Frustration is much lower in the RL than in its complement. Using equilibrium simulations we observe that this property can be found even above the critical temperature. This leads us to propose that the RL should share many properties of ferromagnetic models, an idea that recently has also been proposed in other contexts. We also suggest a preliminary generalization of the definition of backbone for systems with continuous distributions of bonds, and we argue that the study of this structure could be useful for a better understanding of the low-temperature phase of those frustrated models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available