Exploring the role of connectivity in disordered system

TL;DR

This study investigates how different connectivity patterns in a disordered system modeled by the RFIM on generalized Petersen graphs influence critical behavior, revealing that coordination number is more crucial than connectivity details.

Contribution

It demonstrates that varying connectivity in generalized Petersen graphs does not induce critical behavior, emphasizing the dominance of coordination number in disordered systems.

Findings

No critical behavior observed for z=3 on GP(N,k)

Connectivity variations do not affect the absence of criticality

Directed vs. undirected GP(N,k) comparison shows similar responses

Abstract

We study a minimal model of disordered systems, the random field Ising model (RFIM) on a generalized Petersen Graph, GP(N,k). This graph has a connected inner and outer loop, where both the loops consist of N nodes constituting a total of 2N nodes. The parameter k satisfies the condition 1<=k<=N/2, such that any site i in the inner loop has i-k and i+k as its two nearest neighbours, apart from its connection to a node on the outer loop. Thus, each node in GP(N,k) has coordination number z=3, and by varying k different connections between the nodes in the inner loop can be obtained. The objective is to study whether different connectivity between nodes in these graphs affects the system's response to an external field when the coordination number is fixed. This is of interest because critical behaviour is absent for z<=3 on a random graph which has been solved exactly as well as on the honeycomb lattice in the context of RFIM. Using single-spin-flip Glauber dynamics at zero temperature, we compare the system's response with the known case of a z=3 random graph and the generalized Petersen graph for various connectivity k, albeit for the same z. Our study finds the absence of critical behaviour on GP(N,k) highlighting the importance of coordination number over varying connectivity between the nodes. Additionally, we explore the case of directed GP(N,k) and compare it with the undirected GP(N,k) results.