1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
|
\documentclass[a4paper]{letter}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc} % why not type "Bézout" with unicode?
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc} % vector fonts plz
\usepackage{newtxtext,newtxmath} % Times for PR
\usepackage[
colorlinks=true,
urlcolor=purple,
linkcolor=black,
citecolor=black,
filecolor=black,
]{hyperref} % ref and cite links with pretty colors
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[style=phys]{biblatex}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}
\addbibresource{frsb_kac-rice.bib}
\signature{
\vspace{-6\medskipamount}
\smallskip
Jaron Kent-Dobias \& Jorge Kurchan
}
\address{
Laboratoire de Physique\\
Ecole Normale Sup\'erieure\\
24 rue Lhomond\\
75005 Paris
}
\begin{document}
\begin{letter}{
Agnese I.~Curatolo, Ph.D.\\
Physical Review Letters\\
1 Research Road\\
Ridge, NY 11961
}
\opening{Dear Dr.~Curatolo,}
Enclosed please find a revised manuscript.
Neither referee criticized the scientific content of our paper,
nor substantively addressed its presentation. We have followed their comments
in the direction of highlighting the importance of having a full solution. In particular
we have emphasized that going to the full replica treatment uncovers a phase-space structure that needs to be taken into account, and that is absent in the annealed treatment.
We have thus added the paragraph:
\begin{quote}
Having a full, exact (`quenched') solution of the generic problem is not
primarily a matter of {\em accuracy}.
Very basic structural questions are omitted in the approximate `annealed' solution. What is lost is the nature, at any given
energy (or free energy) level, of the stationary points in a generic energy function: 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 for the understanding of the relevance of more complex objects such as
barrier crossing (which barriers?) \footfullcite{Ros_2019_Complexity, Ros_2021_Dynamical}, or the fate of long-time dynamics
(which end in what kind of target states?).
\end{quote}
Both referees find that our paper is clearly written but technical, and
that its topic of "the different RSB schemes" are not suitable for a
broad audience. This is surprising to the authors, since a quick
search on Google Scholar reveals several recent PRLs with heavy use of
RSB schemes.
We would also like to submit to the referees that it is somewhat
incongruous that the solution to a problem that had remained open for 42 years -- during which it was always present in articles in PRL and PRX -- is rejected
because it demands of the readers a slightly longer attention span.
\begin{enumerate}
\item PRL has been publishing articles on precisely this problem in the
last 30 years.\footfullcite{Fyodorov_2004_Complexity, Bray_2007_Statistics, Fyodorov_2012_Critical, Wainrib_2013_Topological, Dennis_2020_Jamming}
\item These works were often limited by the fact that general landscapes (for
which an annealed solution is not exact) were inaccessible. It is perhaps
true that the final solution of an open problem may often be more technical
than the previous ones.
\end{enumerate}
Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
Report of Referee A -- LY17256/Kent-Dobias
\begin{quote}
\it
The authors consider spin glass models with mixed p-spin interactions
on the N-Sphere and calculate the number of stationary points, the
logarithm of which yields the complexity. The disorder average of this
logarithm is computed with the replica trick, and for different model
variants different replica symmetry breaking (RSB) solutions are
obtained. A new feature of the solutions, in contrast to previous
replica symmetric calculations, is that RSB must occur in parts of the
energy-stability phase diagram.
\hspace{2em}The paper is clearly written although the content is rather technical
and probably only accessible to experts in mean field spin glass
models and the different RSB schemes developed in this field. In
connection with the well-studied p=3 spin glass model it is briefly
mentioned that the complexity and its transitions as a function of
energy and/or stability is relevant for the equilibrium and the
dynamical behavior of this model – but such a connection has not been
made here.
\hspace{2em}Therefore, I feel that the results presented here are only interesting
for group of experts and I do not assess the finding that the
complexity of mixed p-spin glass models shows RSB as a major
breakthrough in the field. Therefore, the manuscript is not suitable
for publication in Phys. Rev. Lett., and the publication of the
accompanying longer paper, submitted to PRE, is sufficient to
disseminate the results summarized in this manuscript.
\end{quote}
Referee A correctly points out that one new feature of the solutions
outlined in our manuscript is that RSB must occur in parts of the
phase diagram for these models. However, they neglect another feature:
that they are the solutions of the *quenched* complexity, which has
not been correctly calculated until now. We agree with the referee
that "the complexity of the mixed p-spin glass models" is not a major
breakthrough in and of itself, we just
chose to demonstrate the problem in simplest toy model. But believe that the technique for
computing the quenched complexity is a major breakthrough
\textit{because it brings in the features of organization of saddles of all
kinds that are invisible in the annealed scheme}.
Referee A states that a connection between the complexity and the
equilibrium and dynamical behavior is not made in our paper. Until
recently, this connection was taken for granted, and the demonstration
that the standard correspondence does not hold in the mixed p-spin
spherical models was exciting enough news to be published in PRX 10,
031045 (2020). It is true that our work doesn't solve the problem that
paper opened, but it does deepen it by showing definitively that the
use of RSB and the quenched complexity are not sufficient to
reestablish a landscape–dynamics connection.
{\bf One can hardly expect that the structure of saddles at a given energy may be connected
with dynamics (for example in Sherrington Kirkpatrick) if it is unknown}.
%We disagree with the
%referee's implicit assertion that only clean resolutions, and not the
%compelling deepening of problems, are worthy of a broad audience.
Report of Referee B -- LY17256/Kent-Dobias
\begin{quote}
\textit{The paper presents a computation of the complexity in spherical
spin-glass models. Neither the techniques nor the results are
sufficiently new and relevant to justify publication on PRL. This is
not surprising given that the topic has been studied extensively in
the last thirty years and more, the only novelty with respect to
previous work is that the results are obtained at zero temperature but
this is definitively not enough. Essential open problems in the field
involves dynamics and activated processes and some results have
appeared recently, instead the analysis of the static landscape, to
which the present paper is a variation, failed to deliver answers to
these questions up to now.
}
\end{quote}
Concerning the statement of Referee B that "the only novelty
with respect to previous work is that the results are obtained at zero
temperature", we do not know what to make of the referee's statement.
The novelty of the paper is most definitely
not the fact of treating a zero temperature case.
We have added the following phrase, that should clarify the situation:
For simplicity we have concentrated here 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, it suffices
to apply the same computation to the Thouless-Andreson-Palmer (TAP) free energy, \footfullcite{Crisanti_1995_Thouless-Anderson-Palmer} instead of the energy. We do not expect new features or technical
complications arise.
%For a system where the quenched and annealed
%complexities differ, there has not been a correct calculation of the
%quenched complexity at finite temperature. (and, besides our work,
%only once or twice at zero temperature, e.g., PRX 9, 011003 (2019).)
%Rejecting a paper based on a severe misconception of its contents or
%of the state of the field is not appropriate.
We agree with Referee B's assessment of "essential open problems in
the field," and agree that our work does not deliver answers. However,
delivering answers for all essential open problems is not the acceptance
criterion of PRL. These are
\begin{itemize}
\item Open a new research area, or a new avenue within an established area.
\item Solve, or make essential steps towards solving, a critical problem.
\item Introduce techniques or methods with significant impact.
\item Be of unusual intrinsic interest to PRL's broad audience.
\end{itemize}
We believe our manuscript makes essential steps toward solving the
critical problem of connecting analysis of the static landscape to
dynamics. We believe that its essential step is through the
introduction of a new technique, calculation of the quenched
complexity, which we believe will have significant impact as it is
applied to more complicated models.
\closing{Sincerely,}
\vspace{1em}
\end{letter}
\end{document}
|
