text:
# Slow dynamics due to entropic barriers in the one-dimensional ’descent model’

## 1 Introduction

Below their glassy transition temperature, glassy systems relax very slowly and remain out of equilibrium on experimental time scales. Despite intensive theoretical studies, the exact nature of this transition is not clearly understood yet, even if it is widely believed that it is of dynamical nature h.Walterkob\_02 . Glassy systems seem to be trapped in some metastable states whose numbers and life times increase dramatically with decreasing energy. Therefore there is an increasing demand for paradigmatic toy-models containing the elementary physical mechanisms responsible for glassiness and its experimental manifestations, such as the aging effect b.Bouchaud\_al\_97 . Among several other mechanisms for slow relaxation and aging, the focus has recently been brought into the existence of entropic barriers r.godreche\_1995 . This term designates boundaries between regions of the phase space where the system has very rare possibility to find a path to go from one region to the other. The system can be trapped in such a region without the necessity of energetic barriers. By analogy with Arrhenius law, the height $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ of an entropic barrier is defined by $`\tau =\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }S)`$, where $`\tau `$ is the time the system needs to go through the entropic barrier. Simple models Ritort\_02  – such as the backgammon model r.ritort\_95  or urn models r.Godreche\_01  – have been developed which exhibit such entropic barriers. These models are of mean-field type such as most of models for glassy dynamics. As compared to these simple models for glassiness and entropic barriers, the interaction in the present toy-model is one-dimensional and therefore it can be legitimately considered as more physical.

On the other hand, our model is based on the well-characterized permutation group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, and many calculations can be carried out either exactly or after some basic assumptions.

## 2 The model

We consider a one-dimensional system of size $`n`$ where the configurations are the $`n!`$ permutations on $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ of the symmetric group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$. We represent a configuration $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$ by a word $`\sigma =\sigma (1)\sigma (2)\mathrm{}\sigma (n)`$ with $`\sigma (i)\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. The energy $`E`$ of a configuration is defined by its number of descents. One says there is a descent between $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ if $`\sigma (i)>\sigma (i+1)`$. For example, let $`n=6`$, the permutation

$$\sigma _{ex}=152364$$
(1)
has 2 descents symbolized by an arrow $``$ and its energy is therefore $`E(\sigma _{ex})=2`$.

We denote by $`D_n^k`$ the degeneracy of the energy level $`E=k`$. The $`D_n^k`$ are known as Euler numberseuler\_1755 . The identity is the unique ground state with zero energy so that $`D_n^0=1`$. Furthermore we can define a symmetric permutation $`\sigma ^c`$ for all $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_n`$, by

$$\sigma ^c=n+1\sigma (i),$$
(2)
for $`1in`$, which has the energy $`E(\sigma ^c)=n1E(\sigma )`$. The distribution of configurations with energy $`k`$ is symmetric with respect to $`(n1)/2`$, and $`D_n^k=D_n^{n1k}`$. At high temperatures all configurations have the same probability, the mean energy per particle in this limit is $`e=(n1)/2n`$, according to the above symmetry and $`e=1/2`$ at the large size limit.

The system evolves via a Metropolis Monte-Carlo algorithm b.newman  and we study two different dynamics: in the non-local one, at each time step, any two sites $`ij`$ are chosen at random and we try to transpose the elements $`\sigma (i),\sigma (j)`$ with a certain probability $`P_{ji}`$, which depends on the temperature $`T`$ and on the energy variation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ if the transposition were executed: $`P_{ji}=\mathrm{min}(1,\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }E/T))`$. In the local dynamics we choose only one site $`i`$ at random, and we try to transpose $`\sigma (i)`$ and $`\sigma (i+1)`$, with the same transition probability as above. Sometimes in the following we will call particles the $`\sigma (i)`$. Indeed, this model can be seen as a system of $`n`$ distinguishable labelled particles on a one-dimensional lattice which tend to sort themselves.

We anticipate on the following to emphasize the origin of the entropic barriers in the non-local dynamics. If quenched from infinite to vanishing temperature the system evacuates its energy and relaxes through decreasing energy levels towards its equilibrium state. We shall demonstrate in the following that it encounters entropic barriers between any two successive energy levels whereas it relaxes rapidly inside each energy level. For example let us explain why there is an entropic barrier between the first excited states and the unique fundamental one. We need to know more precisely the values of $`D_n^k`$. Starting from the expression euler\_1755 :

$$(k+1)^n=\underset{j=0}{\overset{k}{}}D_n^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+kj}{n}\right),$$
(3)
we derive the value of $`D_n^1=2^n(n+1)2^n`$ for $`n1`$. We get in the same way:

$$D_n^k(k+1)^n,\text{ for }k/n1.$$
(4)
We can easily recover the result for $`D_n^1`$ by constructing the permutations with one descent as follows: we place the elements of the permutation, beginning by $`1`$ and continuing with $`2`$ etc…, randomly in two different sets, like if we were distributing distinguishable particles into two boxes. We can build $`2^n`$ permutations that have a descent at the boundary of the two sets, except if we have built the identity, which is obtained in $`n+1`$ ways, moving this boundary between any two successive elements of the identity. Subsequently $`D_n^1=2^n(n+1)`$. This point of view can be generalized to any energy $`k`$. The system is seen as $`(k+1)`$ ordered subsets separated by descents. In this point of view, the descents can be considered as domain walls between ordered subsets.

This point of view also highlights the similitude between our model and the backgammon r.ritort\_95 ; r.franz\_ritort\_96  one. It consists in $`N`$ distinguishable particles placed in $`N`$ boxes, where the energy is equal to minus the number of empty boxes. Our subsets play the role of the boxes in the backgammon model. The difference with our model is that the particle interaction in the backgammon model is not localized: it is intrinsically mean-field. Note however that there exists a one-dimensional generalization of the backgammon model crisanti\_00  where particles are allowed to jump to nearest neighbors only. However, this generalization complicates the analysis of the model crisanti\_00 .

We have seen above that there are about $`2^n`$ first excited states and only one fundamental. In order to find this state, the system with energy equal to one, will wander in the phase space until it finds a state connected to the fundamental one. If the wandering is uniform in the first level, the probability that the system finds such a state, will be $`(n(n1)/2)/2^n`$, where $`n(n1)/2`$ is the number of path starting from the fundamental state in the non-local dynamics. Being in one of these states, it will have a probability $`2/n(n1)`$ to choose the direction towards the minimal energy. So, there will be about $`2^n`$ steps of the dynamics before the system finds the identity state, which corresponds to an entropic barrier of height of order $`n`$. Note that the previous argument also holds in the local dynamics: one obtains the same entropic barrier. Nevertheless, the type of the dynamics will be of importance, since one can suppose an uniform wandering only for the non-local one for which we can prove the connectivity of the energy levels even at $`T=0`$. Which means that there is always a path between any two configurations of one level that is inside it. The system searching the paths to decrease its energy will not have to pass through any energy barrier. It is not the case for the local dynamics. But the entropic barriers, which depend mainly on the ratio of the level sizes, will be also present in the local dynamics, in conjunction with energetic barriers. In terms of permutation, passing through an entropic barrier corresponds to a complex rearrangement of particle. The order in which pairs of particles must be swapped to optimize their position without increasing the energy is quite constrained.

## 3 Statics

One of the advantages of the model is that its partition functions, canonical or grand canonical, have been extensively studied in the mathematical literature. Indeed, we can write the canonical partition function as follows:

$$Z=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}D_n^k\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{k}{T}\right)=\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}D_n^kt^k=\frac{1}{t}(1t)^{n+1}\underset{k0}{}k^nt^k,$$
(5)
with $`t=\mathrm{exp}(1/T)`$ and where the last equality comes from combinatorial analysis b.comtet2 . More precisely, it is obtained inductively using the following relation on the $`D_n^k`$:

$$D_{n+1}^k=(n+1k)D_n^{k1}+(k+1)D_n^k.$$
(6)
This former equation is obtained by building configurations with $`n+1`$ elements by adding the $`(n+1)^{th}`$ particle in all the possible positions on a configuration with $`n`$ elements. One can further remark that Eq. (4) comes from the second term of the right hand-side of Eq. (6). To obtain the mean values of the thermodynamical observables we compute:

$$\frac{\mathrm{ln}Z}{n}=\frac{n+1}{n}\mathrm{ln}(1t)+\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{ln}\underset{k0}{}k^nt^{k1}.$$
(7)
The sum in the right hand side of the former equation reads

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}k^nt^{k1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\mathrm{exp}n(\mathrm{ln}(k+1){\displaystyle \frac{k}{nT}})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k0}{}}\mathrm{exp}(nf(k,T))`$
$`=`$ $`(2\pi nT^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}(1/Tn),`$
by taking the continuous limit, and evaluating the so-obtained integral by a saddle-point argument for $`n1`$. This continuous limit is only valid if the width of the Gaussian approximate of $`\mathrm{exp}\left(nf(k,T)\right)`$, is large as compared to the spacing between two consecutive energy levels, $`\mathrm{\Delta }k=1`$, that is to say if $`T1/2\sqrt{n}`$. In the thermodynamic limit it will be always true for any finite temperature. Using Eq. (7) and thermostatics identities the thermodynamical observables can be exactly computed. The free energy per site obeys

$$f=T(\mathrm{ln}(1t)+\mathrm{ln}(nT))$$
(9)
and the mean energy per particle is given by

$$e=Tt/(1t).$$
(10)
It follows that the specific heat is

$$C_V=1+t/(T(1t))^2,$$
(11)
and the entropy per particle is given by

$$s=(ef)/T=\mathrm{ln}(nT)+\mathrm{ln}(1t)t/T(1t)+1.$$
(12)
Note that this entropy is not extensive. Let us remark the existence of an interesting low temperature domain defined typically by $`T<0.1`$, where the first term of Eq. (7) is negligible so that $`eT`$. It delimits a low energy domain, where $`D_n^k(k+1)^n`$, which results in entropic barriers. We will see in the following part that the slow dynamics takes place in this region of the configuration space. These results show that there is no thermodynamical transition at any finite temperature.

## 4 Dynamics

We have defined two types of dynamics above, for the sake of simplicity, we focus on the non-local one, and we shall discuss the local one in the conclusion. As we have seen above, we study the dynamics of the system after a quench from high temperature, during which the system tries to decrease its energy to reach a low temperature equilibrium state. In the following, we will focus only on low temperatures such that the system has to encounter entropic barriers during its relaxation process.

In order to analyse the dynamics, we first map our model on a random walker on the energy levels. It is on this model, which is much simpler, that we get analytical results. In a second part, we check numerically by Monte-Carlo simulations that the dynamics of the descent model is quite well described by this random walker. In order to justify this mapping let us make some hypotheses. We suppose that the equilibration time in any energy level is short as compared to the time spent to go through an entropic barrier between two energy levels. That is to say we suppose that there is no entropic barrier inside an energy level. This hypothesis is reasonable since the energy levels are connected, and will be corroborated in the following by numerical results. We also suppose that the paths between two energy levels are uniformly distributed inside these levels.

Following these hypotheses we compute the probability that the system goes from one level to another using the mean features of the levels. We take the slow dynamics of the model as equivalent to a dynamics between the energy levels. In other words, we map the dynamics of our model on a Markovian random walker on the energy levels, whose features are precised in the following. Since we know the $`D_n^k`$ at low energy, and the number of paths starting from any configuration, we know the total number of paths starting from one level, $`D_n^k(n1)n/2`$. We are searching the number of paths allowing the system to decrease its energy from one level $`k`$. It is also the number of paths starting from one level $`l<k`$ and arriving in $`k`$. Since the energy variation cannot exceed $`2`$, $`l\{k2,k1\}`$. Let us introduce a parameter $`p(k)`$ which represents the proportion of paths starting from the level $`k1`$ and allowing the system to increase its energy by one unit. It certainly depends on the energy level. We investigated numerically the configuration space of the model, and we concluded that for $`\frac{k}{n}=e<0.1`$, $`p(k)Ke`$, with $`K`$ a constant that seems to depend very weakly on $`n`$. For $`n=10000`$, we have $`K1.99`$ and $`K=1.97`$ for $`n=12`$. For the links between the fundamental state and the first excited ones ($`k=1`$), one can trivially show that $`K`$ exactly equals $`2`$. In the following we will consider $`K=2`$.

So, $`pD_n^{k1}(n1)n/2`$ is the number of paths starting from one level $`k1`$ and increasing the energy by one unit, and $`pD_n^{k1}/D_n^k`$ the proportion of paths starting from one level $`k`$ allowing the system to decrease its energy by one unit. Being equilibrated in the level $`k`$, the system has to find one of these paths to decrease its energy. These events are very rare because of the great ratio $`D_n^k/D_n^{k1}`$ at low energy. Indeed, the typical time $`\tau _{k,1}`$, in Monte-Carlo steps, to go through the entropic barrier (of height $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$) between the energy levels $`k`$ and $`k1`$, satisfies:

$$\tau _{k,1}=\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }S)=\frac{D_n^k}{pD_n^{k1}}\frac{1}{p}\left(\frac{k+1}{k}\right)^n\stackrel{n1}{=}\frac{1}{p}\mathrm{exp}(n/k).$$
(13)
This time gives us the probability rate by unit step that the random walker goes from $`k`$ to $`k1`$, $`\omega _{kk1}=1/\tau _{k,1}`$. In the same way we can obtain the typical time $`\tau _{k,2}\mathrm{exp}(2/(k/n1/n))/q`$ that the system goes from a level $`k`$ to $`k2`$, $`q`$ being the proportion of paths starting from $`k`$ and arriving in $`k+2`$. Simulations show that $`q`$ is of order 1. We obtain $`\omega _{kk2}=1/\tau _{k,2}`$, but in the following we will always neglect it since $`\omega _{kk2}/\omega _{kk1}\omega _{kk1}1`$. The master equation for the random walker at $`T=0`$ is given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}P(k,t+1/n)=P(k,t)+\hfill \\ \hfill p(k+1)\mathrm{exp}(n/(k+1))P(k+1,t)\\ \hfill p(k)\mathrm{exp}(n/k)P(k,t),\end{array}$$
(14)
where $`t`$ is in Monte-Carlo unit (one unit is equal to $`n`$ Monte-Carlo steps). By using the energy per particle $`e`$ and the continuous limit in time and energy, this equation reads:

$$\frac{P(e,t)}{t}=\frac{}{e}(p(e)P(e,t)\mathrm{exp}(1/e)).$$
(15)
Thus one obtains the evolution of the mean energy per particle with time $`e(t)`$, using $`p(e)=2e`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\frac{de}{dt}=_0^{(n1)/n}\frac{P(e,t)}{t}e𝑑e\hfill \\ \hfill =2_0^{(n1)/n}eP(e,t)\mathrm{exp}(1/e)𝑑e.\end{array}$$
(16)
We calculate this integral by developing $`eP(e,t)\mathrm{exp}(1/e)`$ around $`e`$:

$$\frac{de}{dt}=2e\mathrm{exp}(1/e)+𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }e^2\mathrm{exp}(1/e)/e^3),$$
(17)
where one keeps only the zeroth order in $`ee`$, since we shall demonstrate that $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^2=(ee)^2e^2/2n`$. Indeed we can derive time evolution of $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^2`$ from eq.(14) paying attention to keep terms of order $`1/n`$ since they cannot be neglected in this case. As above, discrete sums are evaluated using an integral and developing $`eP(e,t)\mathrm{exp}(1/e)`$ around $`e`$:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }e^2}{dt}=\frac{2}{e}e^{1/e}\mathrm{\Delta }e^2+\frac{e}{n}e^{1/e}\frac{1}{n}e^{2/e}.$$
(18)
The first term describes a rapid decay of $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^2`$ towards its quasi-equilibrium value $`e^2/2n`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^2`$ will be stabilized around $`e^2/2n`$, which is checked numerically for the descent model and the random walker. By integrating eq. (17) we obtain the time the walker needs to go from high energy to the level $`ϵ=e`$, $`t=ϵ\mathrm{exp}(1/ϵ)/2+𝒪(ϵ^2\mathrm{exp}(1/ϵ))`$ and:

$$e(t)\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(2t)+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(2t))}\stackrel{t\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}.$$
(19)
This dynamics can also be found in a variety of theoretical models Ritort\_02 , such as the backgammon model and the oscillator model oscillator , as well as in compaction of granular media (models and experiments r.deGennes\_97 ; r.Knight\_98 ; r.Knight\_95 ; see conclusion). This result means that the system will never reach the fundamental state at $`T=0`$, and will always stay out of equilibrium despite the absence of energy barriers. Its relaxation time in the thermodynamical limit is diverging. In the long time regime the dynamics will be slower and slower. To check eq.(19), we made some numerical simulations on the random walker and on the original model. The interest of the random walker is that its simplicity allows us to compute numerically its exact dynamics for large $`n`$ and $`t`$ (up to $`t=10^{12}`$) using its transition matrix. We find very good agreement between analytical and numerical calculations. Monte-Carlo simulations on the descent model are also in very good agreement with analytical calculations at large $`t`$, as we can see in fig. 2. These results corroborate a posteriori the hypothesis that there are no entropic barriers inside the energy levels, since otherwise the random walker would be faster than the descent model.

Let us remark that the only analytically unknown parameter is $`p(e)`$. In fact, this parameter is irrelevant for the asymptotic dynamics while $`p`$ is of polynomial type: $`p=Ke^\alpha `$. Indeed, using this equation for $`p`$, eq. (17) reads:

$$\frac{de}{dt}=Ke^\alpha \mathrm{exp}(1/e)+𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }e^2\mathrm{exp}(1/e)e^{\alpha 4}),$$
(20)
and hence the mean energy per particle becomes:

$$e(t)\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(Kt)+(2\alpha )\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(Kt))}\stackrel{t\mathrm{}}{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}.$$
(21)
For $`\alpha =2`$, the evolution in $`1/\mathrm{ln}(t)`$ is even exact at all times in the thermodynamical limit, not only asymptotically, which is well verified in numerical simulations.

The variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^2`$ does not depend on $`\alpha `$, since eq. (18) becomes:

$$\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }e^2}{dt}=2e^{\alpha 2}e^{1/e}\mathrm{\Delta }e^2+\frac{e^\alpha }{n}e^{1/e}.$$
(22)
We still have the quasi-equilibrium value $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^2=e^2/2n`$. We will see below that the shape of $`p`$ does not change the aging in the energy-energy correlation function either. It is not surprising: what dominates the dynamics is the exponential decay of the random walker transition rate with the inverse energy.

In the following we will consider again $`p=2e`$, since it mimics the best the descent model.

To study the dynamics at $`T>0`$, we have to consider the possibility that the walker increases its energy. From the definitions of the dynamics and of $`p`$ and $`q`$, it follows that $`\omega _{kk+1}=p\mathrm{exp}(\beta )`$ and $`\omega _{kk+2}=q\mathrm{exp}(2\beta )`$, where $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature. At low temperature, $`\omega _{kk+1}/\omega _{kk+2}1`$, so we need not consider the possibility that the system jumps two levels in one step. In the same way as at $`T=0`$, the evolution of the random walker position follows a master equation, which in the continuous limit, leads to:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{de}{dt}=2e& \mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{e})+2e\mathrm{exp}(\beta )\hfill \\ & +𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }e^2\mathrm{exp}(1/e)/e^4).\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
We remark that $`de/dt=0`$ for $`e=1/\beta =T`$, which is the equilibrium energy for the descent model for $`T1`$. At high $`T`$ the random walker does not represent the descent model anymore since it evolves in a region where $`D_n^k(k+1)^n`$. Thus we focus on the low $`T`$ region. One can see from eq. (23), that while the system is far from its equilibrium energy the possibility that it jumps to an higher level by thermal activation will be negligible in front of its possibility to decrease its energy: for $`e1/\beta `$ we have $`\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{e})\mathrm{exp}(\beta )`$. Far from its equilibrium state, the system is not influenced by the temperature and its dynamics is the same as at $`T=0`$. This defines a typical time $`\tau _\beta =\mathrm{exp}(\beta )/(2\beta )`$ needed by the system to reach $`e=1/\beta `$ with the dynamics at $`T=0`$. Near equilibrium, temperature effects appear and we obtain the dynamics by developing $`\mathrm{exp}(1/e)`$ around $`1/\beta `$ in eq. (23). We find an exponential relaxation of energy with the same characteristic time $`\tau _\beta `$ (see fig. 2, inset).

We define two types of correlation functions in order to characterize the dynamics. One is based on the matching of two permutations, in others words on the proportion of sites at time $`t`$ which bear the same particles as at a time $`t_w`$: $`C_\sigma (t,t_w)=_1^n\delta _{\sigma _i(t+t_w),\sigma _i(t_w)}/n`$, where $`t_w`$ is the waiting time after the quench. At high temperature, it can be proven that $`C_\sigma (tt_w,t_w)=1/n`$, at lower temperature we numerically observe that it is also the case. This correlation function shows rapid decay for any $`t_w`$, with no aging effects. The second correlation function we consider is the energy-energy correlation:

$$C_e(t,t_w)=\frac{e(t+t_w)e(t_w)e(t+t_w)e(t_w)}{\mathrm{\Delta }e^2(t_w)}.$$
(24)
We studied it numerically for both models at different $`t_w`$. For the random walker, at $`T=0`$ one can see in fig. 3 that the system ages. The correlation function seems to tend towards the scaling law: $`C_e(t,t_w)t_w/(t+t_w)`$ at very large $`t_w`$.

At $`T>0`$ we expect the dynamics to be the same as at $`T=0`$ while the system is out-of-equilibrium. As long as $`t<\tau _\beta `$ we find numerically the same plots as at $`T=0`$ whereas we find time translational invariance for $`t+t_w>\tau _\beta `$. The same results are found for the descent model but with statistical noise since we cannot use the transition matrix. These results show the strong importance of the observable we focus on to observe aging r.pmadrid\_02 .

Now we propose a simple argument leading to the following law at large $`t`$ and $`t_w`$ :

$$C_e(t,t_w)\frac{t_w}{t+t_w}\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2t_w}{\mathrm{ln}^2(t+t_w)}.$$
(25)
As illustrated in figure 4, this law accounts quite well for our numerical observations as far as the random walker is concerned. In particular, the logarithmic corrections ensure the collapse of the curves for different values of $`t_w`$ on a straight line of slope very close to -1. For the descent model, the statistical noise does not allow to distinguish if the logarithmic corrections improve the agreement between theory and numerical experiments.

Our argument is as follows: since the dynamics on energy levels is Markovian, the future of the random walker beyond $`t_w`$ (i.e. $`t>0`$) only depends on the energy distribution at time $`t_w`$. For the descent model it will be only true at large times, when the entropic barriers make the dynamics on the energy levels Markovian.

Now we make the following hypothesis: the evolution of the mean energy $`e(t+t_w)`$ only depends on the mean energy $`e(t_w)`$ and not on the precise shape and width of the energy distribution at $`t_w`$. This hypothesis is supported by numerical simulations with different initial energy distributions and it is corroborated by the excellent agreement between theoretical and numerical correlation functions. Furthermore, it amounts to neglecting the terms of higher order in eq. (17), as we made before, which is exact in the thermodynamics limit.

A consequence of this hypothesis is that any shift $`\delta e`$ at $`t_w`$ of the mean energy has the same effect on $`e(t+t_w)`$ as a time delay $`\delta t`$ at $`t_w`$, since it only consists of a shift of the initial condition. For small $`\delta e`$, $`\delta t`$ is such that:

$$\frac{\delta e}{\delta t}\frac{de}{dt}(t_w)=\frac{1}{t_w\mathrm{ln}^2t_w}.$$
(26)
This point is illustrated in figure 1. Now we still denote by $`e(t+t_w)`$ the mean energy without any shift at $`t_w`$, and by $`e|\delta e,t_w(t+t_w)`$ the mean energy after an energy shift $`\delta e`$ at $`t_w`$ (conditional mean). Subsequently

$`e|\delta e,t_w(t+t_w)`$ $``$ $`e(t+t_w+\delta t)`$
$``$ $`e(t+t_w)+\delta t{\displaystyle \frac{de}{dt}}(t+t_w)`$
$``$ $`e(t+t_w)+\delta e{\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{t+t_w}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2t_w}{\mathrm{ln}^2(t+t_w)}}.`$
Now the energy-energy correlation function is

$$e(t+t_w)e(t_w)=\underset{e^{}}{}\underset{e}{}ee^{}P(e^{},t_w)P(e,t+t_w|e^{},t_w)$$
(28)
where $`P(e^{},t_w)`$ is the probability that the energy per particle is $`e^{}`$ at time $`t_w`$ and $`P(e,t+t_w|e^{},t_w)`$ is a conditional probability, and

$`e(t+t_w)e(t_w)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{e^{}}{}}e^{}P(e^{},t_w)e|\delta e=e^{}e(t_w),t_w`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{e^{}}{}}e^{}P(e^{},t_w)\times `$
$`\left[e(t+t_w)+(e^{}e(t_w)){\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{t+t_w}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2t_w}{\mathrm{ln}^2(t+t_w)}}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`e(t+t_w)e(t_w)+`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{t_w}{t+t_w}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}^2t_w}{\mathrm{ln}^2(t+t_w)}}{\displaystyle \underset{e^{}}{}}P(e^{},t_w)\left[e^{}e(t_w)\right]^2.`$
The last sum is the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }e^2`$ of the energy distribution at time $`t_w`$. Hence we get eq. (25). Note that the same kind of argument can be used to derive the same energy-energy correlation function for the Backgammon model and is also in excellent agreement with numerical simulations that we perfeormed independently. Note that our correlation function is not the same as the one calculated in reference r.godreche\_96 , which explains that is does not have the same expression. With $`p=Ke^\alpha `$, this law is unchanged as we saw before for $`e(t)`$.

## 5 Conclusion

We have focused so far on the non-local dynamics. Let us now discuss briefly the local one. Its interest lies in the fact that it is truly one-dimensional since it respects the one-dimensional character of the model. We shall see that even if its analysis is complicated by the existence of energetic barriers (which freeze the dynamics at $`T=0`$), the qualitative conclusions are the same as for the non-local case. Indeed, one shows numerically that below an energy per particle $`e_m(n)0.1`$, which depends slowly on $`n`$, nearly all states are local potential minima. Therefore at $`T=0`$, the system is always stuck in these minima, and at $`T>0`$ it has to pass over energy barriers at each energy level in order to lower its energy. However, these energy barriers are always of height 1, and one needs a time of order $`\mathrm{exp}(\beta )`$ to pass them. Therefore, the times needed to pass over energetic barriers and entropic barriers have the same order of magnitude and the system is not substentially slowed by energetic barriers, at least at $`T>0`$. More precisely, we have measured typical times $`\tau ^{}(n,T)`$ by evaluating the constant diffusion of particles at equilibrium, at small but finite temperatures and we conclude that $`\tau ^{}(n,T)`$ is of dominant order $`n^2\mathrm{exp}(\beta )`$. As compared to the non-local characteristic times, this dynamics is $`n^2`$ times slower than the non-local one. Note that this prefactor $`n^2`$ is also present at high temperatures where it can be proven rigorously that $`\tau ^{}(n,\mathrm{})n^2`$ r.Wilson\_01 . At high temperature, the $`n^2`$ term is certainly due to the diffusion of particles over the whole system. At smaller temperature, one can think that it results from the diffusion of descents acting as walls between ordered domains, which allows the system to explore energy levels. As far as aging is concerned, our numericals results remain compatible with the law: $`C_e(t,t_w)=t_w/(t+t_w)`$.

A natural continuation of the present work will be to investigate into deaper detail the relationship between our model and compaction of granular media. Indeed, equation (17) also governs the evolution of the density in simple models of compaction (see r.Knight\_98  for example). On the other hand, in these mean-field models based on a free volume argument, as well as in the one-dimensional descent model, the slow dynamics is due to the necessity of complex and long rearrangements of particles to optimize the organization of the system.

To finish with, we mention that as soon as a model presents an effective Markovian dynamics between energy levels due to entropic barriers, the present analysis can be applied to this model. For example, the Backgammon model can be tackled in such a way and one obtains the correct laws for the mean energy $`e(t)`$ and the correlation function $`C_e(t,t_w)`$.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Rémy Mosseri and Alexandre Lefèvre for fruitful discussions.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Weakly bound systems have attracted a lot of attention in different domain of physics. Halo nuclei have been studied for several years using various probes . Diffuse Van-der-Waals dimers and trimers represent another interesting example, such as $`(^4He)_2`$ whose existence has been established only recently . All these systems are characterized by very large spatial extensions on one hand and very small separation energies on the other hand. For example, the one-neutron halo $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be`$ has a separation energy of about 0.5 MeV, the average separation energy being of 6 MeV, while the average distance between the halo neutron and the core is about 7 fm. The $`(^4He)_2`$ dimer is a paragon: its predicted dissociation energy is 0.1 $`\mu `$eV, whereas the ionization energy is of about 27 eV and the measured average distance between the two atoms is of about 52 $`\AA `$ . This is by far the largest dimer ever observed !

One of the intriguing features of very weakly bound systems is that they can reveal “universal” behaviors, i.e. independent of the specific interaction which keeps together the particles. An example is given by the relation between the size of the system, which can be characterized through different moments of the wave function, like the mean square radius or $`r^2`$, and the (separation or dissociation) energy $`E_S`$ necessary to break the system, that is

$$r^2=f(E_S)E_S0.$$
(1)
This relation is often called (asymptotic) scaling law.

Several works exist on the topic of scaling laws for two- and three-body systems obtained with short-range and repulsive (mainly Coulomb) long-range interactions . For the short-range case, so far only potentials defined by two parameters, the depth and the range, have been considered.

Recently these investigations have been widened by the study of a larger class of potentials , namely : i) short range potentials having a repulsive core to simulate the Pauli exclusion principle; ii) long-range attractive potentials. Here we report on this investigation and describe how scaling laws for short-range potentials are modified by the presence of the core. We present scaling laws for long-range interactions and emphasize analogies and differences between the short- and the long-range case.

Finally, we come to a question which has been extensively discussed in the literature , namely : What is a halo system ? The image we are now accustomed to is the one in which the halo particle has a very large probability of being outside the classically allowed region. This image needs to be enlarged if one wants to include the case of long-range potentials, as we will discuss.

## 2 Theoretical Framework

Scaling laws for two-body systems (1) can be treated in the context of the two-body problem in quantum mechanics111In the case of halo nuclei, such a description has a validity as far as the degrees of freedom of the halo nucleons can be separated from those of the core.. A bound state of the system is then identified as a bound state of the potential $`V(r)`$222Here we will consider that the system has spherical symmetry so that the potential is a function of the relative distance between the two bodies only. A dependence on the spin degrees of freedom does not change our conclusions. acting between the two atoms or the core and the halo nucleon in a nucleus. The separation energy of the system $`E_S`$ is taken equal to the energy of the bound state $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$.

There are (at least) three possible ways to tackle this problem  :

* Using very general arguments, without specifying the potential $`V(r)`$. These arguments are based, for example, on inequalities like the Bertlmann-Martin inequality, or on properties of the Schrödinger equation333Since we consider only the lowest states of each angular momentum (the wave function has no node), they are simply labeled by $`\mathrm{}`$. ($`\mathrm{}=2m=1`$) :

$$[\frac{^2}{r^2}\frac{2}{r}\frac{}{r}+\frac{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+1)}{r^2}+\lambda V(r)]\psi _{\mathrm{}}(r)=E_{\mathrm{}}\psi _{\mathrm{}}(r),$$
(2)
such as its invariance under the transformation444This transformation is valid for potentials defined by two parameters only. $`x=r/R_0`$ and $`ϵ=E_{\mathrm{}}R_0^2`$, where $`R_0`$ characterizes the range of the potential.
* Once the range of the potential is defined, in the limit of very small binding one can make the following approximations : i) for short-range potentials the wave function is mainly given by the tail outside the potential, i.e. by the Hankel wave function $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}(r)e^{\mu r}/r^{\mathrm{}+1}`$ with $`\mu (E_{\mathrm{}})`$; ii) for long-range potentials the wave function, mainly inside the potential, can be taken as the spherical Bessel function of the first kind $`\psi _{\mathrm{}}(r)j_{\mathrm{}}(kr)`$ with $`k(E_{\mathrm{}})`$, cutting the integrals at the first zero.
* Specific potentials can be used to get quantitative estimates.

## 3 What happens to Scaling Laws for Short-Range Potentials having a Repulsive Core ?

For the class of short-range potentials going to zero faster than $`1/r^2`$, the scaling laws are  :

$$r^2_0\frac{c_0}{|E_0|},r^2_1\frac{c_1R_0}{\sqrt{|E_1|}},r^2_2c_2R_0^2,$$
(3)
for s- ($`\mathrm{}=0`$), p- ($`\mathrm{}=1`$) and d-states555There is no energy dependence in the scaling laws of states having $`\mathrm{}>2`$ as well. ($`\mathrm{}=2`$). As we can see, the mean square radius diverges as $`1/|E_0|`$ and as $`1/\sqrt{|E_1|}`$ for s- and p-states respectively, but no divergence is present for states having $`\mathrm{}2`$. If we take the divergence of the second moment of the wave function as a reference for the appearance of halos, we can say that halos may occur for s- and p-states, in the limit of very weak binding, but that such phenomenon cannot appear for states of higher $`\mathrm{}`$.

The relations (3) have been obtained using the behavior of the tail of the wave functions . This automatically implies that the constants $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ are independent of the potential $`V`$. Numerical studies have also been performed in the past to check the sensitivity of $`c_{\mathrm{}}[V]`$ to the specific shape of the potentials; but so far potentials defined by their depth and their range (like the square well and the Gaussian potential) have been considered.

However, strictly speaking the scaling law is completely independent of the shape of the short-range potential for the s-state only, since $`c_0=1/2`$ . Can physical systems, like halo nuclei or diffuse dimers, attain this region of very small binding, where the scaling law (3) become completely independent of the potential ? This can be easily checked by looking if $`r^2_0|E_0|=1/2`$. We show results for $`{}_{}{}^{11}Be`$666The same is true for the other halo nuclei . and the $`(^4He)_2`$ dimer777We use the $`r^2`$ from calculations in  which well reproduce the measured $`r`$ of $`(^4He)_2`$., as examples (Fig.1). We can see that if nuclear halo systems are located in a region which is still sensitive to the specific choice of the potential, diffuse dimers attain the region of very weak binding .

Concerning the other coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ ($`\mathrm{}>0`$), if one considers a larger class of short-range potentials, defined by more than two-parameters, like those including a repulsive core, the independence of (3) from the potential is no more strictly true . To illustrate how $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ depend on $`V`$, we compare the results obtained with a two parameters’ potential and with a potential including a repulsive core (Fig.1).

We can see that the higher $`\mathrm{}`$ is, the stronger is the dependence of $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ and therefore of the corresponding scaling law (3) on the shape of the potential. In fact, the role played by the centrifugal barrier is the larger, the higher is $`\mathrm{}`$. As a consequence, the wave function is pushed more and more inside the potential and becomes sensitive to its specific shape.

## 4 What are Scaling Laws for Long-Range Potentials?

Using both inequalities and the behavior of the wave functions we have shown that the scaling laws for the class of long-range potentials going to zero slower than $`1/r^2`$ (such as the attractive Coulomb interaction, the confining potentials like the linear potential and the harmonic oscillator) are  :

$$r^2_{\mathrm{}}\frac{c_{\mathrm{}}[V]}{|E_{\mathrm{}}|}\mathrm{}E_{\mathrm{}}0.$$
(4)
For the s-states, the scaling law (4) has the same dependence on $`1/|E_0|`$ as for short-range potentials. However, the coefficients $`c_0`$ here (as well as the other $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\mathrm{}>0`$) will always depend on the potential $`V`$ because the wave function is mainly inside the potential and feels its specific shape. For example, $`c_0=3`$ for the Kratzer potential, the Coulomb attractive potential and the harmonic oscillator.

Fig. 1: Scaling laws (3) obtained with short-range potentials for s- (top), p- (middle) and d-states (bottom)  : The coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{}}`$ are shown as a function of the energy $`E_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the state. The full, the short-dashed and long-dashed lines correspond to a potential including a repulsive core with three different ranges $`R_0`$. As an illustration the cut Kratzer potential is taken: $`V_{cur}(r)=2(\frac{a}{r}\frac{a^2}{2r^2})\mathrm{\Theta }(R_0r)`$. For comparison the results obtained with a potential without a repulsive core (the square well) are shown (dotted line). For $`c_0`$, the arrows indicate the range of the energies corresponding to halo nuclei (right) and to diffuse Van-der-Waals dimers (left).

For the states having $`\mathrm{}>0`$, the mean square radius always diverges as $`1/|E_{\mathrm{}}|`$, contrary to the short-range case (3). Therefore systems kept together by a long-range interaction can develop very large extensions, and this for states of any angular momentum $`\mathrm{}`$ ! This difference with the known short-range case results can be intuitively understood. In fact, in the long-range case the centrifugal barrier is not playing a major role in confining the halo particle inside the potential.

An example of very extended systems bound by a long-range interaction is already known : Rydberg atoms. However, there is a major difference. Here we are predicting that there may exist very weakly bound two-body systems bound by long-range interactions having large spatial extensions in their lowest energy states.

## 5 What is a Halo System?

How to define a halo system has been the object of extensive discussions in the literature. Nowadays we think of halo systems as systems in which the halo particle has a very high probability of being outside the classical turning point . In the case of long-range potentials the particle is mainly in the classical allowed region. The appearance of halos can still be characterized in a common way for both the short- and the long-range cases : the $`r^2_{\mathrm{}}^{1/2}`$ has to be much larger than a typical physical length of the system (such as for example the size of the core).

These new results tell us that the appearance of halos is a threshold phenomenon, independent of the range, short or long, of the interaction and therefore also of the time spent by the halo particle inside or outside the classical region.