\documentclass[reprint,aps,prl,longbibliography,floatfix]{revtex4-2} \usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % why not type "Bézout" with unicode? \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % vector fonts plz \usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,latexsym,graphicx} \usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath} % Times for PR \usepackage[dvipsnames]{xcolor} \usepackage[ colorlinks=true, urlcolor=MidnightBlue, citecolor=MidnightBlue, filecolor=MidnightBlue, linkcolor=MidnightBlue ]{hyperref} % ref and cite links with pretty colors \usepackage{anyfontsize} \begin{document} \title{ Unveiling the complexity of hierarchical energy landscapes } \author{Jaron Kent-Dobias} \author{Jorge Kurchan} \affiliation{Laboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, France} \begin{abstract} Complex landscapes are characterized by their many saddle points. Determining their number and organization is a long-standing problem, in particular for tractable Gaussian mean-field potentials, which include glass and spin glass models. The annealed approximation is well understood, but is generically not exact. Here we describe the exact quenched solution for the general case, which incorporates Parisi's solution for the ground state, as it should. More importantly, the quenched solution correctly uncovers the full distribution of saddles at a given energy, a structure that is lost in the annealed approximation. This structure should be a guide for the accurate identification of the relevant activated processes in relaxational or driven dynamics. \end{abstract} \maketitle The functions used to describe the energies, costs, and fitnesses of disordered systems in physics, computer science, and biology are typically \emph{complex}, meaning that they have a number of minima that grows exponentially with the size of the system \cite{Maillard_2020_Landscape, Ros_2019_Complex, Altieri_2021_Properties}. Though they are often called `rough landscapes' to evoke the intuitive image of many minima in something like a mountain range, the metaphor to topographical landscapes is strained by the reality that these complex landscapes exist in very high dimensions. Many interesting versions of the problem have been treated, and the subject has evolved into an active field of probability theory \cite{Auffinger_2012_Random, Auffinger_2013_Complexity, BenArous_2019_Geometry} that has been applied to energy functions inspired by molecular biology, evolution, and machine learning \cite{Maillard_2020_Landscape, Ros_2019_Complex, Altieri_2021_Properties}. The computation of the number of metastable states in such a landscape was pioneered forty years ago by Bray and Moore \cite{Bray_1980_Metastable} on the Sherrington--Kirkpatrick (SK) model, in one of the first applications of any replica symmetry breaking (RSB) scheme. As was clear from the later results by Parisi \cite{Parisi_1979_Infinite}, their result was only approximate, and the problem has been open ever since. To date the program of computing the statistics of stationary points---minima, saddle points, and maxima---of mean-field complex landscapes has been only carried out in an exact form for a relatively small subset of models, including most notably the (pure) $p$-spin spherical model ($p>2$) \cite{Rieger_1992_The, Crisanti_1995_Thouless-Anderson-Palmer, Cavagna_1997_An, Cavagna_1998_Stationary}. Having a full `quenched' solution of the generic problem is not primarily a matter of {\em accuracy}. Basic structural questions are omitted in the approximate `annealed' solution. What is lost is the nature of the stationary points at a given energy level: at low energies are they basically all minima, with an exponentially small number of saddles, or (as we show here) do they consist of a mixture of saddles whose index (the number of unstable directions) is a smoothly distributed number? These questions need to be answered if one hopes to correctly describe more complex objects such as barrier crossing (which barriers?) \cite{Ros_2019_Complexity, Ros_2021_Dynamical} or the fate of long-time dynamics (that targets which kind of states?). In this paper we present what we argue is the general replica ansatz for the number of stationary points of generic mean-field models, which we expect to include the SK model. This allows us to clarify the rich structure of all the saddles, and in particular the lowest ones. Using a general form for the solution detailed in a companion article \cite{Kent-Dobias_2022_How}, we describe the structure of landscapes with a 1RSB complexity and a full RSB complexity. The interpretation of a Parisi ansatz itself must be recast to make sense of the new order parameters involved. For simplicity we concentrate on the energy, rather than {\em free-energy}, landscape, although the latter is sometimes more appropriate. From the technical point of view, this makes no fundamental difference and it suffices to apply the same computation to the Thouless--Anderson--Palmer \cite{Crisanti_1995_Thouless-Anderson-Palmer} (TAP) free energy, instead of the energy. We do not expect new features or technical complications to arise. For definiteness, we consider the standard example of the mixed $p$-spin spherical models, which exhibit a zoo of disordered phases. These models can be defined by drawing a random Hamiltonian $H$ from a distribution of isotropic Gaussian fields defined on the $N-1$ sphere. Isotropy implies that the covariance in energies between two configurations depends on only their dot product (or overlap), so for $\mathbf s_1,\mathbf s_2\in S^{N-1}$, \begin{equation} \label{eq:covariance} \overline{H(\mathbf s_1)H(\mathbf s_2)}=Nf\left(\frac{\mathbf s_1\cdot\mathbf s_2}N\right), \end{equation} where $f$ is a function with positive coefficients. The overbar will always denote an average over the functions $H$. The choice of function $f$ uniquely fixes the model. For instance, the `pure' $p$-spin models have $f(q)=\frac12q^p$. The complexity of the $p$-spin models has been extensively studied by physicists and mathematicians. Among physicists, the bulk of work has been on the so-called `TAP' complexity of pure models \cite{Rieger_1992_The, Crisanti_1995_Thouless-Anderson-Palmer, Cavagna_1997_An, Cavagna_1997_Structure, Cavagna_1998_Stationary, Cavagna_2005_Cavity, Giardina_2005_Supersymmetry}, and more recently mixed models \cite{Folena_2020_Rethinking} without RSB \cite{Auffinger_2012_Random, Auffinger_2013_Complexity, BenArous_2019_Geometry}. The methods of complexity have been used to study many geometric properties of the pure models, from the relative position of stationary points to one another to shape and prevalence of instantons \cite{Ros_2019_Complexity, Ros_2021_Dynamical}. The family of spherical models thus defined is rich, by varying the covariance $f$ any hierarchical structure can be found in equilibrium. Because of the correspondence between the ground state complexity and the equilibrium entropy, any hierarchical structure in equilibrium should be reflected in the computation. The complexity is calculated using the Kac--Rice formula, which counts the stationary points using a $\delta$-function weighted by a Jacobian \cite{Kac_1943_On, Rice_1939_The}. It is given by \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} \mathcal N(E, \mu) &=\int_{\mathbb R^N}d\boldsymbol\xi\,e^{-\frac12\|\boldsymbol\xi\|^2/\sigma^2}\int_{S^{N-1}}d\mathbf s\, \delta\big(\nabla H(\mathbf s)-\boldsymbol\xi\big)\,\big|\det\operatorname{Hess}H(\mathbf s)\big| \\ &\hspace{2pc}\times\delta\big(NE-H(\mathbf s)\big)\delta\big(N\mu-\operatorname{Tr}\operatorname{Hess}H(\mathbf s)\big) \end{aligned} \end{equation} with two additional $\delta$-functions inserted to fix the energy density $E$ and the stability $\mu$. The additional `noise' field $\boldsymbol\xi$ helps regularize the $\delta$-functions for the energy and stability at finite $N$, and will be convenient for defining the order parameter matrices later. The complexity is then \begin{equation} \label{eq:complexity} \Sigma(E,\mu)=\lim_{N\to\infty}\lim_{\sigma\to0}\frac1N\overline{\log\mathcal N(E, \mu}). \end{equation} Most of the difficulty of this calculation resides in the logarithm in this formula. The stability $\mu$, sometimes called the radial reaction, determines the depth of minima or the index of saddles. At large $N$ the Hessian can be shown to consist of the sum of a GOE matrix with variance $f''(1)/N$ shifted by a constant diagonal matrix of value $\mu$. Therefore, the spectrum of the Hessian is a Wigner semicircle of radius $\mu_\mathrm m=\sqrt{4f''(1)}$ centered at $\mu$. When $\mu>\mu_\mathrm m$, stationary points are minima whose sloppiest eigenvalue is $\mu-\mu_\mathrm m$. When $\mu=\mu_\mathrm m$, the stationary points are marginal minima with flat directions. When $\mu<\mu_\mathrm m$, the stationary points are saddles with index fixed to within order one (fixed macroscopic index). It is worth reviewing the complexity for the best-studied case of the pure model for $p\geq3$ \cite{Cugliandolo_1993_Analytical}. Here, because the covariance is a homogeneous polynomial, $E$ and $\mu$ cannot be fixed separately, and one implies the other: $\mu=pE$. Therefore at each energy there is only one kind of stationary point. When the energy reaches $E_\mathrm{th}=-\mu_\mathrm m/p$, the population of stationary points suddenly shifts from all saddles to all minima, and there is an abrupt percolation transition in the topology of constant-energy slices of the landscape. This behavior of the complexity can be used to explain a rich variety of phenomena in the equilibrium and dynamics of the pure models: the `threshold' \cite{Cugliandolo_1993_Analytical} energy $E_\mathrm{th}$ corresponds to the average energy at the dynamic transition temperature, and the asymptotic energy reached by slow aging dynamics. Things become much less clear in even the simplest mixed models. For instance, one mixed model known to have a replica symmetric complexity was shown to nonetheless not have a clear relationship between features of the complexity and the asymptotic dynamics \cite{Folena_2020_Rethinking}. There is no longer a sharp topological transition. In the pure models, $E_\mathrm{th}$ also corresponds to the \emph{algorithmic threshold} $E_\mathrm{alg}$, defined by the lowest energy reached by local algorithms like approximate message passing \cite{ElAlaoui_2020_Algorithmic, ElAlaoui_2021_Optimization}. In the spherical models, this has been proven to be \begin{equation} E_{\mathrm{alg}}=-\int_0^1dq\,\sqrt{f''(q)} \end{equation} For full RSB systems, $E_\mathrm{alg}=E_0$ and the algorithm can reach the ground state energy. For the pure $p$-spin models, $E_\mathrm{alg}=E_\mathrm{th}$, where $E_\mathrm{th}$ is the energy at which marginal minima are the most common stationary points. Something about the topology of the energy function might be relevant to where this algorithmic threshold lies. To compute the complexity in the generic case, we use the replica method to treat the logarithm inside the average of \eqref{eq:complexity}, and the $\delta$-functions are written in a Fourier basis. The average of the factor including the determinant and the factors involving $\delta$-functions can be averaged over the disorder separately \cite{Bray_2007_Statistics}. The result can be written \begin{equation} \Sigma(E,\mu)=\lim_{N\to\infty}\lim_{n\to0}\frac1N\frac{\partial}{\partial n} \int_{\mathrm M_n(\mathbb R)} dQ\,dR\,dD\,e^{N\mathcal S(Q,R,D\mid E,\mu)}, \end{equation} where the effective action $\mathcal S$ is a function of three matrices indexed by the $n$ replicas: \begin{equation} \begin{aligned} &Q_{ab}=\frac{\mathbf s_a\cdot\mathbf s_b}N \hspace{4em} R_{ab}=\frac{\boldsymbol\xi_a\cdot\mathbf s_b}{N\sigma^2} \\ &D_{ab}=\frac1{N\sigma^4}\left(\sigma^2\delta_{ab}-\boldsymbol\xi_a\cdot\boldsymbol\xi_b\right). \end{aligned} \end{equation} The matrix $Q$ is a clear analogue of the usual overlap matrix of the equilibrium case. The matrices $R$ and $D$ have interpretations as response functions: $R$ is related to the typical displacement of stationary points by perturbations to the potential, and $D$ is related to the change in the complexity caused by the same perturbations. The general expression for the complexity as a function of these matrices is also found in \cite{Folena_2020_Rethinking}. The complexity is found by the saddle point method, extremizing $\mathcal S$ with respect to $Q$, $R$, and $D$ and replacing the integral with its integrand evaluated at the extremum. We make the \emph{ansatz} that all three matrices have a hierarchical structure, and moreover that they share the same hierarchical structure. This means that the size of the blocks of equal value of each is the same, though the values inside these blocks will vary from matrix to matrix. This form can be shown to exactly reproduce the ground state energy predicted by the equilibrium solution, a key consistency check. Along one line in the energy--stability plane the solution takes a simple form: the matrices $R$ and $D$ corresponding to responses are diagonal, leaving only the overlap matrix $Q$ with nontrivial off-diagonal entries. This simplification makes the solution along this line analytically tractable even for FRSB. The simplification is related to the presence of an approximate supersymmetry in the Kac--Rice formula, studied in the past in the context of the TAP free energy \cite{Annibale_2003_Supersymmetric, Annibale_2003_The, Annibale_2004_Coexistence}. This line of `supersymmetric' solutions terminates at the ground state, and describes the most numerous types of stable minima. Using this solution, one finds a correspondence between properties of the overlap matrix $Q$ at the ground state energy, where the complexity vanishes, and the overlap matrix in the equilibrium problem in the limit of zero temperature. The saddle point parameters of the two problems are related exactly. In the case where the vicinity of the equilibrium ground state is described by a $k$RSB solution, the complexity at the ground state is $(k-1)$RSB. This can be intuitively understood by considering the difference between measuring overlaps between equilibrium \emph{states} and stationary \emph{points}. For states, the finest level of the hierarchical description gives the typical overlap between two points drawn from the same state, which has some distribution about the ground state at nonzero temperature. For points, this finest level does not exist. In general, solving the saddle-point equations for the parameters of the three replica matrices is challenging. Unlike the equilibrium case, the solution is not extremal, and so minimization methods cannot be used. However, the line of simple `supersymmetric' solutions offers a convenient foothold: starting from one of these solutions, the parameters $E$ and $\mu$ can be slowly varied to find the complexity everywhere. This is how the data in what follows was produced. \begin{figure} \centering \hspace{-1em} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{316_complexity_contour_1_letter.pdf} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{316_detail_letter_legend.pdf} \caption{ Complexity of the $3+16$ model in the energy $E$ and stability $\mu$ plane. Solid lines show the prediction of 1RSB complexity, while dashed lines show the prediction of RS complexity. Below the yellow marginal line the complexity counts saddles of increasing index as $\mu$ decreases. Above the yellow marginal line the complexity counts minima of increasing stability as $\mu$ increases. } \label{fig:2rsb.contour} \end{figure} \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{316_detail_letter.pdf} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{316_detail_letter_legend.pdf} \caption{ Detail of the `phases' of the $3+16$ model complexity as a function of energy and stability. Solid lines show the prediction of 1RSB complexity, while dashed lines show the prediction of RS complexity. Above the yellow marginal stability line the complexity counts saddles of fixed index, while below that line it counts minima of fixed stability. The shaded red region shows places where the complexity is described by the 1RSB solution, while the shaded gray region shows places where the complexity is described by the RS solution. In white regions the complexity is zero. Several interesting energies are marked with vertical black lines: the traditional `threshold' $E_\mathrm{th}$ where minima become most numerous, the algorithmic threshold $E_\mathrm{alg}$ that bounds the performance of smooth algorithms, and the average energies at the $2$RSB and $1$RSB equilibrium transitions $\langle E\rangle_2$ and $\langle E\rangle_1$, respectively. Though the figure is suggestive, $E_\mathrm{alg}$ lies at slightly lower energy than the termination of the RS -- 1RSB transition line. } \label{fig:2rsb.phases} \end{figure} For the first example, we study a model whose complexity has the simplest replica symmetry breaking scheme, 1RSB. By choosing a covariance $f$ as the sum of polynomials with well-separated powers, one develops 2RSB in equilibrium. This should correspond to 1RSB in the complexity. We take \begin{equation} f(q)=\frac12\left(q^3+\frac1{16}q^{16}\right) \end{equation} established to have a 2RSB ground state \cite{Crisanti_2011_Statistical}. With this covariance, the model sees a replica symmetric to 1RSB transition at $\beta_1=1.70615\ldots$ and a 1RSB to 2RSB transition at $\beta_2=6.02198\ldots$. The typical equilibrium energies at these phase transitions are listed in Table~\ref{tab:energies}. \begin{table} \begin{tabular}{l|cc} & $3+16$ & $2+4$ \\\hline\hline $\langle E\rangle_\infty$ &---& $-0.531\,25\hphantom{1\,111\dots}$ \\ $\hphantom{\langle}E_\mathrm{max}$ & $-0.886\,029\,051\dots$ & $-1.039\,701\,412\dots$\\ $\langle E\rangle_1$ & $-0.906\,391\,055\dots$ & ---\\ $\langle E\rangle_2$ & $-1.195\,531\,881\dots$ & ---\\ $\hphantom{\langle}E_\mathrm{dom}$ & $-1.273\,886\,852\dots$ & $-1.056\,6\hphantom{11\,111\dots}$\\ $\hphantom{\langle}E_\mathrm{alg}$ & $-1.275\,140\,128\dots$ & $-1.059\,384\,319\ldots$\\ $\hphantom{\langle}E_\mathrm{th}$ & $-1.287\,575\,114\dots$ & $-1.059\,384\,319\ldots$\\ $\hphantom{\langle}E_\mathrm{m}$ & $-1.287\,605\,527\ldots$ & $-1.059\,384\,319\ldots$ \\ $\hphantom{\langle}E_0$ & $-1.287\,605\,530\ldots$ & $-1.059\,384\,319\ldots$\\\hline \end{tabular} \caption{ Landmark energies of the equilibrium and complexity problems for the two models studied. $\langle E\rangle_1$, $\langle E\rangle_2$ and $\langle E\rangle_\infty$ are the average energies in equilibrium at the RS--1RSB, 1RSB--2RSB, and RS--FRSB transitions, respectively. $E_\mathrm{max}$ is the highest energy at which any stationary points are described by a RSB complexity. $E_\mathrm{dom}$ is the energy at which dominant stationary points have an RSB complexity. $E_\mathrm{alg}$ is the algorithmic threshold below which smooth algorithms cannot go. $E_\mathrm{th}$ is the traditional threshold energy, defined by the energy at which marginal minima become most common. $E_\mathrm m$ is the lowest energy at which saddles or marginal minima are found. $E_0$ is the ground state energy. } \label{tab:energies} \end{table} In this model, the RS complexity gives an inconsistent answer for the complexity of the ground state, predicting that the complexity of minima vanishes at a higher energy than the complexity of saddles, with both at a lower energy than the equilibrium ground state. The 1RSB complexity resolves these problems, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:2rsb.contour}. It predicts the same ground state as equilibrium and with a ground state stability $\mu_0=6.480\,764\ldots>\mu_\mathrm m$. Also, the complexity of marginal minima (and therefore all saddles) vanishes at $E_\mathrm m$, which is very slightly greater than $E_0$. Saddles become dominant over minima at a higher energy $E_\mathrm{th}$. The 1RSB complexity transitions to a RS description for dominant stationary points at an energy $E_\mathrm{dom}$. The highest energy for which the 1RSB description exists is $E_\mathrm{max}$. The numeric values for all these energies are listed in Table~\ref{tab:energies}. For minima, the complexity does not inherit a 1RSB description until the energy is within a close vicinity of the ground state. On the other hand, for high-index saddles the complexity becomes described by 1RSB at quite high energies. This suggests that when sampling a landscape at high energies, high index saddles may show a sign of replica symmetry breaking when minima or inherent states do not. Fig.~\ref{fig:2rsb.phases} shows a different detail of the complexity in the vicinity of the ground state, now as functions of the energy difference and stability difference from the ground state. Several of the landmark energies described above are plotted, alongside the boundaries between the `phases.' Though $E_\mathrm{alg}$ looks quite close to the energy at which dominant saddles transition from 1RSB to RS, they differ by roughly $10^{-3}$, as evidenced by the numbers cited above. Likewise, though $\langle E\rangle_1$ looks very close to $E_\mathrm{max}$, where the 1RSB transition line terminates, they too differ. The fact that $E_\mathrm{alg}$ is very slightly below the place where most saddle transition to 1RSB is suggestive; we speculate that an analysis of the typical minima connected to these saddles by downward trajectories will coincide with the algorithmic limit. An analysis of the typical nearby minima or the typical downward trajectories from these saddles at 1RSB is warranted \cite{Ros_2019_Complex, Ros_2021_Dynamical}. Also notable is that $E_\mathrm{alg}$ is at a significantly higher energy than $E_\mathrm{th}$; according to the theory, optimal smooth algorithms in this model stall in a place where minima are exponentially subdominant. \begin{figure} \centering \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{24_phases_letter.pdf} \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{24_detail_letter_legend.pdf} \caption{ `Phases' of the complexity for the $2+4$ model in the energy $E$ and stability $\mu$ plane. Solid lines show the prediction of 1RSB complexity, while dashed lines show the prediction of RS complexity. The region shaded gray shows where the RS solution is correct, while the region shaded red shows that where the FRSB solution is correct. The white region shows where the complexity is zero. } \label{fig:frsb.phases} \end{figure} If the covariance $f$ is chosen to be concave, then one develops FRSB in equilibrium. To this purpose, we choose \begin{equation} f(q)=\frac12\left(q^2+\frac1{16}q^4\right), \end{equation} also studied before in equilibrium \cite{Crisanti_2004_Spherical, Crisanti_2006_Spherical}. Because the ground state is FRSB, for this model $E_0=E_\mathrm{alg}=E_\mathrm{th}=E_\mathrm m$. In the equilibrium solution, the transition temperature from RS to FRSB is $\beta_\infty=1$, with corresponding average energy $\langle E\rangle_\infty$, also in Table~\ref{tab:energies}. Fig.~\ref{fig:frsb.phases} shows the regions of complexity for the $2+4$ model, computed using finite-$k$ RSB approximations. Notably, the phase boundary predicted by a perturbative expansion correctly predicts where the finite $k$RSB approximations terminate. Like the 1RSB model in the previous subsection, this phase boundary is oriented such that very few, low energy, minima are described by a FRSB solution, while relatively high energy saddles of high index are also. Again, this suggests that studying the mutual distribution of high-index saddle points might give insight into lower-energy symmetry breaking in more general contexts. We have used our solution for mean-field complexity to explore how hierarchical RSB in equilibrium corresponds to analogous hierarchical structure in the energy landscape. In the examples we studied, a relative minority of energy minima are distributed in a nontrivial way, corresponding to the lowest energy densities. On the other hand, very high-index saddles begin exhibit RSB at much higher energy densities, on the order of the energy densities associated with RSB transitions in equilibrium. More wore is necessary to explore this connection, as well as whether a purely \emph{geometric} explanation can be made for the algorithmic threshold. Applying this method to the most realistic RSB scenario for structural glasses, the so-called 1FRSB which has features of both 1RSB and FRSB, might yield insights about signatures that should be present in the landscape. \paragraph{Acknowledgements} The authors would like to thank Valentina Ros for helpful discussions. \paragraph{Funding information} JK-D and JK are supported by the Simons Foundation Grant No.~454943. \bibliography{frsb_kac-rice} \end{document}