This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

The stochastic porous medium equation in one dimension

Maximilien Bernard Laboratoire de Physique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, CNRS, ENS and PSL Université, Sorbonne Université, Université Paris Cité, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris, France LPTMS, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France    Andrei A. Fedorenko Univ Lyon, ENS de Lyon, CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique, F-69342 Lyon, France    Pierre Le Doussal Laboratoire de Physique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure, CNRS, ENS and PSL Université, Sorbonne Université, Université Paris Cité, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris, France    Alberto Rosso LPTMS, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France
Abstract

We study the porous medium equation (PME) in one space dimension in presence of additive non-conservative white noise, and interpreted as a stochastic growth equation for the height field of an interface. We predict the values of the two growth exponents α\alpha and β\beta using the functional RG. Extensive numerical simulations show agreement with the predicted values for these exponents, however they also show anomalous scaling with an additional ”local” exponent αloc\alpha_{\rm loc}, as well as multiscaling originating from broad distributions of local height differences. The stationary measure of the stochastic PME is found to be well described by a random walk model, related to a Bessel process. This model allows for several predictions about the multiscaling properties.

Introduction. The porous medium equation (PME) th=D(h)h\partial_{t}h=\nabla D(h)\nabla h describes the evolution of a conserved scalar field hh in a dd dimensional non-linear medium Vazquez (2006). As such it appears ubiquitously in physics, e.g. to model heat transfer in presence of non linear thermal conductivity, or density flows of an ideal gas in porous media with non-linear equations of state Barenblatt (1952); Zel’dovich and Kompaneets (1950). The PME equation was proved to arise as an hydrodynamic limit of interacting particle systems Varadhan (1991); Oelschläger (1990), in kinetically constrained lattice gases Gonçalves et al. (2007); Cardoso et al. (2023). It also arises in the conserved dynamics of magnetic interfaces Spohn (1993a, b) and in sandpile models Bántay and Jánosi (1992). More recently it was found to describe superdiffusion of energy in non integrable Luttinger liquids Bulchandani et al. (2020). The PME is often studied for D(h)|h|s1D(h)\propto|h|^{s-1} a power law, the case s0s\to 0 being the logarithmic PME Pedron et al. (2005). For general ss it admits special front solutions, known as Barenblatt’s solutions Barenblatt (1952); Zel’dovich and Kompaneets (1950); Vazquez (2006), spreading as xt1/(2+d(s1))x\sim t^{1/(2+d(s-1))} subdiffusively for s<1s<1, and superdiffusively for s>1s>1.

In this Letter we study a stochastic version of the porous medium equation (SPME) in presence of additive non-conservative noise. We will consider it as a model for the growth of an interface of height h(x,t)h(x,t) with evolution equation

th(x,t)=2V(h(x,t))+η(x,t)\partial_{t}h(x,t)=\nabla^{2}V(h(x,t))+\eta(x,t) (1)

where η(x,t)\eta(x,t) is a Gaussian white noise uncorrelated in time and space, V(h)V(h) is an increasing function of hh, and the Laplacian term can also be written as D(h)h\nabla D(h)\nabla h with D(h)=V(h)D(h)=V^{\prime}(h), i.e. V(h)h|h|s1V(h)\propto h|h|^{s-1} in the power law case. For s=1s=1 it reduces to the celebrated Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) equation Edwards and Wilkinson (1982), i.e. the simplest linear equation describing the equilibrium growth of an interface. In that case the height fluctuations scale as hxαh\sim x^{\alpha} with roughness exponent α=1/2\alpha=1/2, while the space-time scaling txzt\sim x^{z} corresponds to dynamical exponent z=2z=2. For s1s\neq 1 the non-linearities make the problem non-equilibrium, as for the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang equation Kardar et al. (1986), although here the universality class is different since the equation is conservative.

An anisotropic version of the SPME in space dimension d=2d=2 has been studied before in the context of erosion of tilted landscapes Pastor-Satorras and Rothman (1998a, b); Antonov and Kakin (2017); Birnir and Rowlett (2013); Pelletier (1999) and of continuous models for self-organized criticality Hwa and Kardar (1989). More recently the stochastic PME has also been studied in the context of the Wilson-Cowan equation in critical neural networks models of the brain dynamics Tiberi et al. (2022) as well as in active matter spe . Furthermore the stochastic PME has also been studied in mathematics Barbu et al. (2016) where existence of solutions was obtained both for the additive noise Da Prato and Röckner (2004); Kim (2006) and multiplicative noise Barbu et al. (2009); Dareiotis et al. (2021).

Despite these works, there is no quantitative theory for the SPME in d=1d=1, unlike the KPZ equation. The aim of the present work is thus to determine the scaling exponents α\alpha and zz, and to numerically check whether standard scaling applies to this highly non-linear stochastic growth equation nag . Surprisingly, we find that the scaling for s1s\neq 1 is anomalous, suggesting the presence of a second roughness exponent αloc\alpha_{\text{loc}}. Although anomalous scaling has been observed in other systems López (1999); Krug (1994); Bernard et al. (2024); Lopez and Schmittbuhl (1998), its origin is fundamentally different in the context of SPME.

In particular, we consider the following discrete version of the SPME in d=1d=1 with additive white noise:

thn=D(hn1)[hn1hn]+D(hn)[hn+1hn]+ηn(t).\partial_{t}h_{n}=D(h_{n-1})\left[h_{n-1}-h_{n}\right]+D(h_{n})\left[h_{n+1}-h_{n}\right]+\eta_{n}(t). (2)

Note that in the above equation, the time dependence of hnh_{n} is kept implicit. This equation represents the time evolution of a spring chain characterized by non-homogeneous and hnh_{n}-dependent elastic constants D(hn)D(h_{n}). Different behavior of D(hn)D(h_{n}) can be considered with the only constraint that D(hn)>0D(h_{n})>0. In this paper, we study the power-law case, D(hn)|hn|s1D(h_{n})\sim|h_{n}|^{s-1} for large hnh_{n} with s>0s>0 and D(hn)D(h_{n}) even. At the origin, the behavior is regularized with D(0)=νD(0)=\nu (See SM for the precise form of D(h)D(h) used in numerical simulation). In Fig.1, we show two interfaces in the stationary regime. The interface with s>1s>1 is flatter compared to the case s<1s<1. Indeed, for large hh, since D(h)|h|s1D(h)\sim|h|^{s-1} the springs become stiff when s>1s>1 and soft when s<1s<1. One of the main result of this paper is the following prediction for the roughness and dynamical exponents

α=2d1+s,z=2(2d)(s1)s+1\alpha=\frac{2-d}{1+s}\quad,\quad z=2-\frac{(2-d)(s-1)}{s+1} (3)

This prediction verifies the exact exponent relationWolf and Villain (1990)

z=2α+d,z=2\alpha+d, (4)

valid for conservative dynamics with non conserved noise 111Indeed, integrating the SPME equation (1) over the system volume leads to ht1/2/Ld/2h\sim t^{1/2}/L^{d/2}, and thus to the exponent relation.. First, we perform a functional RG calculation and find stable fixed points that preserve the same power law behavior D(h)|h|s1D(h)\sim|h|^{s-1} at large hh. This leads to the prediction Eq. (3) for d2d\leq 2, obtained to first order in a ϵ=2d\epsilon=2-d expansion, but argued to be exact for s>0s>0. However, we also find that local observables exhibit anomalous scaling. For instance, for L,\ell\ll L, and nLn\sim L, the qq moments of the stationary equal time height-to-height correlation read:

|hn+hn|q1/qαloc(q)L(ααloc(q))\langle|h_{n+\ell}-h_{n}|^{q}\rangle^{1/q}\sim\ell^{\alpha_{\rm loc}(q)}L^{(\alpha-\alpha_{\rm loc}(q))} (5)

where \langle\dots\rangle indicates the average over the noise. In Eq.(5), αloc(q)\alpha_{\rm loc}(q) is commonly referred to as the local roughness exponent López (1999); Krug (1994); Bernard et al. (2024); Lopez and Schmittbuhl (1998) and can depend on the value of qq. The anomalous scaling arises due to the presence of inhomogeneous increments, hn+1hnh_{n+1}-h_{n}, along the interface.

Third, in the final part of the Letter, we show with heuristic arguments and numerical simulations, that the stationary interface of the SPME, provided that LL is large, has the same statistical properties as the following random walk:

h~n+1=h~n+χnD(h~n)\tilde{h}_{n+1}=\tilde{h}_{n}+\frac{\chi_{n}}{\sqrt{D(\tilde{h}_{n})}} (6)

where χn\chi_{n} is a centered unit Gaussian random variable, independent of h~n\tilde{h}_{n}. Using this mapping, we can recover the roughness exponent from Eq.(3) as well as the anomalous scaling. In particular, we predict that αloc(q)=1/2\alpha_{\text{loc}}(q)=1/2 for 0<s<10<s<1 while for s>1s>1, one has

αloc(q){1/2,q<qcα+1qs1+s,qc<q\displaystyle\alpha_{\text{loc}}(q)\sim\begin{cases}1/2~{}~{}~{}~{}\quad,\quad q<q_{c}\\ \alpha+\frac{1}{q}\frac{s}{1+s}\quad,\quad q_{c}<q\end{cases} (7)

with q<qc=2+2/(s1)q<q_{c}=2+2/(s-1).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: Examples of stationary interfaces for s=3s=3, ν=1\nu=1 (blue) and s=0.5s=0.5, ν=0.25\nu=0.25 (red) L=500L=500 . The latter has been rescaled by a factor 55 for aesthetic purposes. For |hn||h_{n}| away from zero, the interface becomes rougher when s<1s<1 and flatter when s>1s>1. In the inset, the mean square increment of the interface height, (hn+1hn)2\langle(h_{n+1}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle at fixed value of hnh_{n}, is compared to the mean square jumps 1/D(hn)1/D(h_{n}) of the random walk defined in Eq. (6) (dashed lines) SM . We observe a perfect agreement at large hnh_{n}.

Renormalization group. To perform the RG analysis of the SPME (1) we use the Martin-Siggia-Rose dynamical field theory in space dimension dd, near the upper critical dimension d=2d=2, in a perturbative expansion in ϵ=2d\epsilon=2-d. The RG analysis of this model was first performed in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995) within a polynomial expansion of the function V(h)V(h) keeping only first few terms. Here we analyze it in the full functional form, that is necessary to identify all possible fixed points which are determined by the large hh behavior of V(h)V(h). We introduce an infrared renormalization scale μ\mu (an inverse length scale which can be taken as L1L^{-1}). We denote the bare potential in the dynamical action by V0(h)V_{0}(h), where V0(0)=νV^{\prime}_{0}(0)=\nu is the bare diffusivity, and the μ\mu-dependent renormalized potential at scale μ\mu by V(h)V(h), defined from the effective action. The functional RG flow to one loop (i.e. to first order in ϵ>0\epsilon>0) then reads SM

μμV(h)=μϵ4πV′′(h)V(h),-\mu\partial_{\mu}V(h)=\frac{\mu^{-\epsilon}}{4\pi}\frac{V^{\prime\prime}(h)}{V^{\prime}(h)}, (8)

We introduce u=14πμμ0𝑑μ/(μ)1+ϵu=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\mu}^{\mu_{0}}d\mu^{\prime}/(\mu^{\prime})^{1+\epsilon} so that uμϵ/ϵu\sim\mu^{-\epsilon}/\epsilon for ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and u=14πlog(μ0/μ)u=\frac{1}{4\pi}\log(\mu_{0}/\mu) in d=2d=2. Let us denote the running V(h)V^{\prime}(h) at the scale μ\mu by Du(h)D_{u}(h). The RG equation can be put in the form

uDu(h)=h2logDu(h)\partial_{u}D_{u}(h)=\partial_{h}^{2}\log D_{u}(h) (9)

which, interestingly, is itself a logarithmic PME. We can look for scale invariant fixed point solutions of the RG flow in the form

Du(h)=u12aF(uah),D_{u}(h)=u^{1-2a}F(u^{-a}h), (10)

Once we find such a fixed point solution, since uμϵLϵu\sim\mu^{-\epsilon}\sim L^{\epsilon}, one can identify α=aϵ\alpha=a\epsilon where α\alpha is the anomalous scaling dimension of hLαh\sim L^{\alpha}. The corresponding time scale is tL2/ν(L)t\sim L^{2}/\nu(L) where ν(L)=Du(0)Lϵ(12a)\nu(L)=D_{u}(0)\sim L^{\epsilon(1-2a)} is the renormalized diffusivity, leading to tLzt\sim L^{z} with z=2ϵ(12a)z=2-\epsilon(1-2a). Hence the exact relation z=2α+dz=2\alpha+d follows and there is a single exponent (as the noise is not corrected under RG) see SM for details. Inserting (10) into (9) we obtain the following fixed point equation for F(H)F(H) with H=h/uaH=h/u^{a}

aHF(H)(12a)F(H)+F′′(H)F(H)F(H)2F(H)2=0.aHF^{\prime}(H)-(1-2a)F(H)+\frac{F^{\prime\prime}(H)}{F(H)}-\frac{F^{\prime}(H)^{2}}{F(H)^{2}}=0. (11)

Since here we consider only the case where V(h)V^{\prime}(h) is finite at h=0h=0 and even, we must have F(0)=0F^{\prime}(0)=0. Moreover, if F(H)F(H) is solution of (11), so is b2F(Hb)b^{2}F(Hb) for any bb. We therefore choose F(0)=1F(0)=1. We have found through analytical and numerical analysis that there are four types of such solutions to the equation (11):

(i) a line of fixed points with 0<a<10<a<1 and F(H)H1H2+1/aF(H)\sim_{H\gg 1}H^{-2+1/a}.

(ii) a special solution F(H)=1/(1+H2/2)F(H)=1/(1+H^{2}/2) associated to a=1a=1.

(iii) F(H)H1eC1H/H2F(H)\sim_{H\gg 1}e^{-C_{1}H}/H^{2} associated to a>1a>1.

(iv) solutions diverging at finite H=H0H=H_{0} as 1/(H0H)\sim 1/(H_{0}-H) for a<0a<0 and 1/(H0H)2\sim 1/(H_{0}-H)^{2} for a=0a=0 .

We show by linear stability analysis, see SM , that the solutions (i) which are relevant for this paper correspond to attractive fixed points of the RG flow Eq.(9). In order to study in more details the basin of attraction of these fixed points, we solve Eq.(9) with several initial conditions (See Fig.2). For s>0s>0, the large |h||h| behavior of Du(h)|h|s1D_{u}(h)\sim|h|^{s-1} is conserved by the RG flow, which converges towards the FP (i) with a=1/(1+s)a=1/(1+s). Finally, one can argue that the higher order loop corrections to the RG equations (8) and (11) cannot change the large hh behavior of V(h)V(h) for s>0s>0, leading to our conjecture that the prediction (3) for the exponents is exact.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: Numerical solution of Eq.(9) illustrating the collapse of Du(h)D_{u}(h). Main panel, s>1s>1: Starting from D0(h)=24+h2D_{0}(h)=2\sqrt{4+h^{2}} which corresponds to s=2s=2 and a=1/(1+s)=1/3a=1/(1+s)=1/3. As uu increases, the solutions converge towards a self-similar fixed point, shown by the black dashed lines, which corresponds to F(H)F(H) (with b2=1.612b^{2}=1.612), calculated numerically from (11). Inset, s<1s<1: Starting from D0(h)=12(1/44+h2)1/4D_{0}(h)=\frac{1}{2}(1/4^{4}+h^{2})^{-1/4}corresponding to s=0.5s=0.5 and a=2/3a=2/3. The dotted line correspond to the predicted fixed point (with b2=0.62b^{2}=0.62).

Numerical results. We use an Euler scheme to integrate Eq.(2), from a flat initial condition, see SM for details and for our choice of function D(h)D(h). We fix h0=0h_{0}=0 and let the right boundary free (D(hL)=0D(h_{L})=0). We first compute the time evolution of the width W(L,t)=1Ln=1L(hn(t)h¯(t))2W(L,t)=\sqrt{\frac{1}{L}\langle\sum_{n=1}^{L}(h_{n}(t)-\bar{h}(t))^{2}\rangle}, where h¯(t)=1Ln=1Lhn(t)\bar{h}(t)=\frac{1}{L}\sum_{n=1}^{L}h_{n}(t) denotes the center of mass. Fig.3 shows a very good agreement with Family-Vicsek scaling:

W(L,t)=Lαfw(tLz).W(L,t)=L^{\alpha}f_{w}(tL^{-z}). (12)

Here the values of the exponents α\alpha and zz are the values predicted by the RG (Eq.(3)). The scaling function fw(u)f_{w}(u) depends on the boundary conditions, with fw(u)cstf_{w}(u)\to{\rm cst} for u1u\gg 1 and fw(u)uα/zf_{w}(u)\sim u^{\alpha/z} for u1u\ll 1. Indeed, the interface is rough up to a length ξ(t)t1/z\xi(t)\sim t^{1/z}, and is flat above this scale. As a consequence, at short times (u1u\ll 1), the width W(L,t)W(L,t), as well as the typical height hn(t)h_{n}(t), grow as ξ(t)αtβ=tα/z\sim\xi(t)^{\alpha}\sim t^{\beta}=t^{\alpha/z}.

Refer to caption
Figure 3: Main Panel: Family-Vicksek collapse (12) for d=1d=1 interfaces with s=0.5s=0.5 (continuous red line) and s=3s=3 (blue line) for several system sizes LL. The exponents α\alpha and zz are those obtained from the RG (3), leading to a successful collapse of the width onto a single curve. The black dotted line corresponds to the predicted short time growth uβ\sim u^{\beta}, with β=α/z=1/(3+s)\beta=\alpha/z=1/(3+s). The data for s=3s=3 has been shifted to the left by a factor 1010 to improve the data presentation. Inset: Moments |Δ|q\langle|\Delta|^{q}\rangle of the increments Δ=hn+hn\Delta=h_{n+\ell}-h_{n} for 1nL1\leq n\leq L-\ell and s=0.5s=0.5. Here, q=1,2,4q=1,2,4 from bottom to top. We obtain a succesful collapse using the scaling proposed in (5) with αloc=1/2\alpha_{\rm loc}=1/2.

The width is a global observable which probes the behavior of the entire interface. We have also computed local observables, particularly the qq-th moments of the stationary height-to-height equal-time correlation. In the inset of Fig. 3, we show, for s=1/2s=1/2, that it exhibits anomalous scaling behavior for L\ell\ll L, as displayed in Eq.(5), with the exponent αloc(q)=1/2\alpha_{\rm loc}(q)=1/2. Here, the average is taken over both the noise but also over nLn\lesssim L. Although Eq.(5) holds for the stationary state, the anomalous scaling can be extended to finite times by replacing LL by ξ(t)\xi(t). We will argue that αloc(q)=1/2\alpha_{\rm loc}(q)=1/2 for s<1s<1, while for s>1s>1 it depends explicitly on qq (See Eq.(7)). Finally, we have also studied the structure factor of the height field which also displays the anomalous scaling SM .

Connection to the random walk. To clarify the relation between the random walk (RW) model defined in Eq.(6) and the stationary interfaces of the SPME, we recall that if the spring constants were independent of hh, i.e. for the EW model, the stationary limit would be described by the equipartition theorem. This theorem predicts Gaussian increments with zero mean and variance 1/D1/D. This reasoning can be extended to cases where D(hn)D(h_{n}) varies slowly along the xx-axis, namely D(hn)D(hn+1)D(h_{n})\simeq D(h_{n+1}). Using a Taylor expansion, we can rewrite the latter condition as a condition for the increments:

|hn+1hn|D(hn)|D(hn)||hn|,|h_{n+1}-h_{n}|\ll\frac{D(h_{n})}{|D^{\prime}(h_{n})|}\sim|h_{n}|, (13)

where the asymptotic behavior |hn|\sim|h_{n}| holds only for large hnh_{n}. For small increments, the distribution of hn+1h_{n+1} conditioned to hnh_{n} becomes Gaussian of mean hnh_{n} and variance 1/D(hn)1/D(h_{n}). For large increments, deviations from the Gaussian behavior are observed. However, as can be seen in the inset of Fig.4, these deviations disappear when |hn|1|h_{n}|\gg 1, in which case the condition (13) is satisfied 222The condition Eq.(13) for the increments can be rewritten as a condition for hnh_{n}. Indeed, for small increments, we expect |hn+1hn|1/D(hn)|h_{n+1}-h_{n}|\sim 1/\sqrt{D(h_{n})}, hence from Eq.(13), the condition becomes |hn+1hn|1/D(hn)|hn|(1s)/2D(hn)/|D(hn)||hn||h_{n+1}-h_{n}|\sim 1/\sqrt{D(h_{n})}\sim|h_{n}|^{(1-s)/2}\ll D(h_{n})/|D^{\prime}(h_{n})|\sim|h_{n}|. This condition is satisfied for |hn|1|h_{n}|\gg 1.. This is also confirmed in the inset of Fig.1, where we show that (hn+1hn)2=1/D(hn)\langle(h_{n+1}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle=1/D(h_{n}) for large |hn||h_{n}|. In the stationary regime, for n=O(L)n=O(L), the height of the interface scale as hnLα1h_{n}\sim L^{\alpha}\gg 1, hence, in the limit of large system size, we may expect that the statistical properties of the SPME are described by the random walk model of Eq.(6) at all scales. This is indeed what we observe, as detailed in SM and illustrated in Fig. 4.

Refer to caption
Figure 4: PDF of hnh_{n} averaged over n[Lp,L]n\in[L-p,L] with L=500L=500 and p=50p=50, with boundary condition h0=10h_{0}=10 and D(h)=1+h2D(h)=1+h^{2} (s=3s=3) for (i) the stationary SPME (orange), (ii) the discrete RW model (blue), (iii) the analytical prediction (black) from the continuum diffusion model (using the two point transition probability in (S76)) (note that there is no fitting parameter). Inset: Distribution of the height hn+1h_{n+1} conditioned to a given hnh_{n} for stationary interfaces of the SPME (Histogram). It is compared to the prediction for the random walk defined in Eq.(6), which is a Gaussian of mean hnh_{n} and variance 1/D(hn)1/D(h_{n}) (Continuous lines)

This RW model allows for several predictions that we now detail. Since the ξn\xi_{n} are i.i.d one obtains the second moment of the height difference (removing the tilde symbol)

(hn+hn)2=m=nn+11D(hm)\langle(h_{n+\ell}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle=\sum_{m=n}^{n+\ell-1}\langle\frac{1}{D(h_{m})}\rangle (14)

At large nn, we assume the scaling hnnα𝗁h_{n}\sim n^{\alpha}{\sf h}, where α\alpha is the Hurst exponent and 𝗁{\sf h} is the rescaled height, a random variable independent of nn. Using D(h)c|h|s1D(h)\simeq c|h|^{s-1} we obtain for n1n\gg 1 (see SM for details)

(hn+hn)21c𝗁1sp=01(n+p)α(1s)\langle(h_{n+\ell}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{c}\langle{\sf h}^{1-s}\rangle\sum_{p=0}^{\ell-1}(n+p)^{\alpha(1-s)} (15)

To determine α\alpha we consider n\ell\sim n, in which case the r.h.s behaves as nα(1s)+1n^{\alpha(1-s)+1} while the l.h.s behaves as n2αn^{2\alpha}. Equating the two gives α=1/(1+s)\alpha=1/(1+s) for the RW model, which coincides with the prediction (3) for the SPME in d=1d=1. Furthermore, one can study the local behavior for n\ell\ll n. From (15) we obtain

(hn+hn)2{n2αif nn2α1if n\langle(h_{n+\ell}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle\sim\left\{\begin{array}[]{ll}n^{2\alpha}&\mbox{if }\ell\sim n\\ n^{2\alpha-1}\ell&\mbox{if }\ell\ll n\end{array}\right. (16)

which shows that the RW model exhibits anomalous scaling with αloc(q=2)=1/2\alpha_{\text{loc}}(q=2)=1/2.

To obtain all the moments of the height difference Δ=hn+hn\Delta=h_{n+\ell}-h_{n} we need the distribution of the rescaled height at large nn. This distribution can be obtained using the continuum version of the RW model, analyzed in SM . There we show that this continuum model is related to a Bessel process in the variable Y=|h|(s+1)/2Y=|h|^{(s+1)/2}. It allows to compute the distribution of the height difference, for given nn and n\ell\ll n SM . Its expression depends on the value of ss. For s>1s>1, it behaves as

Pn,(Δ){n12α12,|Δ|Δtypnss+1ss1|Δ|(3+2s1),Δtyp|Δ|Δc\displaystyle P_{n,\ell}(\Delta)\sim\begin{cases}n^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}\ell^{-\frac{1}{2}}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{},~{}|\Delta|\ll\Delta_{\text{typ}}\\ n^{-\frac{s}{s+1}}\ell^{\frac{s}{s-1}}|\Delta|^{-(3+\frac{2}{s-1})}~{},~{}\Delta_{\text{typ}}\ll|\Delta|\ll\Delta_{c}\end{cases} (17)

with a typical value Δtyp=nα1/21/2\Delta_{\text{typ}}=n^{\alpha-1/2}\ell^{1/2} and an upper cutoff Δc=α\Delta_{c}=\ell^{\alpha}. From (17), we can calculate the qq-th moment, which shows a multiscaling behavior

|Δ|q{q2nq(α12),q<qcqα+ss+1nss+1,q>qc\displaystyle\langle|\Delta|^{q}\rangle\sim\begin{cases}\ell^{\frac{q}{2}}n^{q\,(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})}\quad,\quad q<q_{c}\\ \ell^{q\alpha+\frac{s}{s+1}}n^{-\frac{s}{s+1}}\quad,\quad q>q_{c}\end{cases} (18)

with qc=2+2s1q_{c}=2+\frac{2}{s-1}. Indeed, for q<qcq<q_{c}, the average is dominated by the typical values, namely Δtypq\sim\Delta_{\rm typ}^{q}, while for q>qcq>q_{c}, it is dominated by the upper cutoff Δcq+1Pn,(Δc)\sim\Delta_{c}^{q+1}P_{n,\ell}(\Delta_{c}). For s<1s<1, the power law decay of Pn,(Δ)P_{n,\ell}(\Delta) for ΔtypΔΔc\Delta_{\rm typ}\ll\Delta\ll\Delta_{c} is replaced by a stretched exponential decay. As a consequence the moments do not display multiscaling and behave as

|Δ|qq2nq(α12).\displaystyle\langle|\Delta|^{q}\rangle\sim\ell^{\frac{q}{2}}n^{q\,(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})}. (19)

Averaging over 1nL1\leq n\lesssim L, we obtain αloc(q)=1/2\alpha_{\rm loc}(q)=1/2 for s<1s<1, while, for s>1s>1, we recover the multifractal αloc(q)\alpha_{\rm loc}(q) given in (7). The continuum model enables further predictions, including the determination of the one-point distribution of the rescaled height 𝗁\sf h (see also Fa and Lenzi (2003); giu )

P(𝗁)|𝗁|s1e2c|𝗁|s+1(s+1)2.P({\sf h})\sim|{\sf h}|^{s-1}e^{-\frac{2c|{\sf h}|^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}}}. (20)

For 0<s<10<s<1, this distribution exhibits an integrable divergence at the origin. Conversely, for s>1s>1, the distribution vanishes at the origin and develops a bimodal shape. Furthermore, the two-point height probability, derived in Eq. (S76), is depicted in Fig. 4 and shows excellent agreement with the SPME. This mapping thus provides a detailed characterization of the statistical properties of the stationary interface.

Conclusion. In summary, we have studied the scaling behavior of the stochastic porous medium equation with a diffusion coefficient D(h)|h|s1D(h)\sim|h|^{s-1} for s>0s>0, and obtained the critical exponents. We have predicted and verified numerically that it obeys anomalous scaling with non-trivial multiscaling properties for s>1s>1. We have found that the stationary interfaces are remarkably well described by a random walk model, which enables many analytical predictions. Its large scale continuum limit is related to a Bessel process, allowing for calculation of, e.g., the stationary height distribution as well as the multifractal exponents. Using functional RG method we have shown that for arbitrary even functions D(h)D(h) there exists only four families of fixed points finite at h=0h=0. While only one of them is relevant for the scaling behavior of the SPME, the others could also have applications. In particular, our functional RG equation can be used to study the models of brain dynamics, such as considered in Tiberi et al. (2022).

Acknowledgments: We thank Bjorn Birnir for discussions. AAF acknowledges support from the ANR Grant No. ANR-18-CE40-0033 (DIMERS), AR from the ANR Grant No. ANR-23-CE30-0031-04 and PLD from the ANR Grant ANR-23-CE30-0020-01 (EDIPS). This work was performed using HPC resources from GENCI-IDRIS (Grant 2024-AD011015488).

References

.

The stochastic porous medium equation in one dimension
– Supplemental Material –

Maximilien Bernard,1,2 Andrei A. Fedorenko,3 Pierre Le Doussal,1 and Alberto Rosso2

1Laboratoire de Physique de l’Ecole Normale Supérieure,
CNRS, ENS and PSL Université, Sorbonne Université,
Université Paris Cité, 24 rue Lhomond, 75005 Paris, France

2LPTMS, CNRS, Univ. Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France

3Univ Lyon, ENS de Lyon, CNRS, Laboratoire de Physique, F-69342 Lyon, France


In this Supplemental Material, we give the principal details of the calculations described in the main text of the Letter.

I Functional RG approach

I.1 Dynamical action and field theory

We study the isotropic SPME equation in space dimension dd

th(x,t)=x2V0(h(x,t))+η(x,t),\partial_{t}h(x,t)=\nabla_{x}^{2}V_{0}(h(x,t))+\eta(x,t), (S1)

where η(x,t)\eta(x,t) is a Gaussian white noise with zero mean and variance

η(x,t)η(x,t)=2σ0δ(xx)δ(tt).\left\langle\eta(x,t)\eta(x^{\prime},t^{\prime})\right\rangle=2\sigma_{0}\delta(x-x^{\prime})\delta(t-t^{\prime}). (S2)

Here we use the subscript zero to denote the bare quantities. We use the dynamical action, obtained by enforcing the equation of motion using an auxiliary response field h^=ih~\hat{h}=-i\tilde{h}, and averaging over the noise. As a result the average of any observable 𝒪[hs]{\cal O}[h_{s}] of the solution h=hsh=h_{s} of (S1) over the noise can be written as a path integral

𝒪[hs]=𝒟h𝒟h~𝒪[h]eS[h~,h]\langle{\cal O}[h_{s}]\rangle=\int{\cal D}h{\cal D}\tilde{h}\,{\cal O}[h]\,e^{-S[\tilde{h},h]} (S3)

where the dynamical action reads

S[h~,h]=𝑑tddx[h~(thx2V0(h))σ0h~2]S[\tilde{h},h]=\int dtd^{d}x[\tilde{h}(\partial_{t}h-\nabla_{x}^{2}V_{0}(h))-\sigma_{0}\tilde{h}^{2}] (S4)

and one may include the initial conditions in the definition of the path integral if needed. An infrared cutoff μ\mu is implicit everywhere to regularize the system at large distance (alternatively one may use a finite system size L1/μL\sim 1/\mu). Splitting V0(h)=ν0h+U0(h)V_{0}(h)=\nu_{0}h+U_{0}(h), where ν0\nu_{0} is the bare diffusivity and U0(h)U_{0}(h) can be treated as the non-linear interaction, one sees from the quadratic part of the action that the bare dimensions of the fields are h=L(2d)/2h=L^{(2-d)/2} and h~=L(d+2)/2\tilde{h}=L^{-(d+2)/2}, with scaling txz0t\sim x^{z_{0}} with z0=2z_{0}=2, and that the non-linear part U0(h)U_{0}(h) becomes relevant for d2d\leq 2. One thus expects logarithmic divergences in perturbation theory at the upper critical dimension d=dc=2d=d_{c}=2. Since the field hh is dimensionless there one expects the need for functional RG to describe the flow of the full function V0(h)V_{0}(h).

One proceeds by computing the effective action functional Γ[ϕ]=Γ[h~,h]\Gamma[\phi]=\Gamma[\tilde{h},h] associated to the action S[ϕ]=S[h~,h]S[\phi]=S[\tilde{h},h], using the two component field notation ϕ=(h~,h)\phi=(\tilde{h},h) whenever convenient. Let us recall that one first defines the partition sum in presence of sources, Z[j]=𝒟ϕeS[ϕ]+𝑑tddxj(x)ϕ(x)Z[j]=\int{\cal D}\phi e^{-S[\phi]+\int dtd^{d}xj(x)\cdot\phi(x)}. Then W[j]=logZ[j]W[j]=\log Z[j] is the generating function of the connected correlations of the field (obtained by taking successive derivatives w.r.t jj). Γ[ϕ]\Gamma[\phi] is then defined as the Legendre transform of W[j]W[j], i.e. Γ[ϕ]=𝑑tddxj(x)ϕ(x)W[j]|W[j]=ϕ\Gamma[\phi]=\int dtd^{d}xj(x)\cdot\phi(x)-W[j]|_{W^{\prime}[j]=\phi}. Its important property is that connected correlations of ϕ\phi are now tree diagrams obtained from Γ[ϕ]\Gamma[\phi]. Hence the vertices of Γ[ϕ]\Gamma[\phi] are the dressed (or renormalized) vertices which sum up all loops. Decomposing S=S0+SintS=S_{0}+S_{\rm int} where S0S_{0} is the part of the action which is quadratic in the fields, it can be computed from the perturbative formula

Γ[ϕ]=S0[ϕ]+p1(1)p+1p!(Sint[ϕ+δϕ])pδϕ,S01PI\Gamma[\phi]=S_{0}[\phi]+\sum_{p\geq 1}\frac{(-1)^{p+1}}{p!}\langle\left(S_{\rm int}[\phi+\delta\phi]\right)^{p}\rangle^{1PI}_{\delta\phi,S_{0}} (S5)

where δϕ,S01PI\langle\dots\rangle^{1PI}_{\delta\phi,S_{0}} denote an average over the field δϕ\delta\phi (at fixed background field ϕ\phi) keeping only 1-particle irreducible diagrams (i.e. connected diagrams in the vertices SintS_{\rm int} which cannot be disconnected by cutting a propagator from S0S_{0}). The RG analysis then proceeds by considering the leading dependence of Γ[ϕ]\Gamma[\phi] in the IR cutoff μ\mu as μ0\mu\to 0, which is related to the analysis of the divergences in the 1PI diagrams (loop diagrams).

I.2 Effective action and RG flow

The calculation of Γ[ϕ]\Gamma[\phi] associated with the action (S4), the analysis of the divergences, and the ensuing RG analysis was pioneered in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995). Here, we thus only sketch the main ideas, and refer the interested reader to that paper for details, as well as to the subsequent paper Antonov and Kakin (2017), which discusses an anisotropic version of the model studied in the context of erosion.

There it was found that to one loop it takes the same form as the action (S4)

Γ[h~,h]=𝑑tddx[h~(thx2V(h))σh~2]+\Gamma[\tilde{h},h]=\int dtd^{d}x[\tilde{h}(\partial_{t}h-\nabla_{x}^{2}V(h))-\sigma\tilde{h}^{2}]+\dots (S6)

up to terms which are irrelevant near d=2d=2 (higher gradients). Indeed, one can check that the term h~th\tilde{h}\partial_{t}h is not corrected, and that, furthermore, the term h~2\tilde{h}^{2} is also not corrected, so that σ=σ0{\sigma=\sigma_{0}} (and we choose σ0=1{\sigma_{0}}=1 below). It is easy to see since a shift h~h~+c\tilde{h}\to\tilde{h}+c by a uniform constant cc in (S4) produces only quadratic terms, up to boundary terms. Equivalently, the term ddxh~x2V0(h)\int d^{d}x\tilde{h}\nabla_{x}^{2}V_{0}(h) can be integrated by part into ddxV0(h)x2h~\int d^{d}xV_{0}(h)\nabla_{x}^{2}\tilde{h} hence no correction to the uniform part of h~\tilde{h} can be produced. As a consequence, no wave-function renormalization, i.e. no renormalization of the field hh, is needed and the only quantity which flows is V(h)V(h), the μ\mu-dependent renormalized potential.

In Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995) it was shown that the divergent part of the one loop contribution to the effective action reads, near d=2d=2, with d=2ϵd=2-\epsilon

Γ~1(h~,h)=Adμϵϵ𝑑tddxU′′(h)ν+U(h)x2h~,\tilde{\Gamma}_{1}(\tilde{h},h)=-A_{d}\frac{\mu^{-\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\int dtd^{d}x\frac{U^{\prime\prime}(h)}{\nu+U^{\prime}(h)}\nabla_{x}^{2}\tilde{h}, (S7)

where μ\mu is the IR regulator (renormalization mass) and A2=1/(4π)A_{2}=1/(4\pi). Note that in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995) the one loop correction (S7) was used to study the RG flow only for the first few coefficients in the Taylor expansion of V(h)V(h), see below. However, in order to identify all possible fixed points, it is necessary to consider the full functional flow of V(h)V(h), which is done in this work. To that end we compute the one-loop correction δV(h)\delta V(h) to the full potential V(h)V(h) expressed in terms of the functional diagram

δV(h)=[Uncaptioned image],\delta V(h)=\includegraphics[width=17.07164pt]{figures/diagram-FRG.pdf}, (S8)

corresponding to the lowest order correction in (S5). Here the black square stands for the vertex V0′′(h)V_{0}^{\prime\prime}(h) and the solid line for the correlation function of δh\delta h in the presence of the background field hh,

δhk,ωδhk,ω=2D02(h)(k2+μ2)2+ω2×(2π)d+1δ(d)(k+k)δ(ω+ω),\langle\delta h_{k,\omega}\delta h_{k^{\prime},\omega^{\prime}}\rangle=\frac{2}{D_{0}^{2}(h)(k^{2}+\mu^{2})^{2}+\omega^{2}}\times(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta^{(d)}(k+k^{\prime})\delta(\omega+\omega^{\prime}), (S9)

where we include the IR cutoff μ\mu. Evaluating the integrals and expanding in ϵ=2d\epsilon=2-d we arrive at

δV(h)=12dω2πddk(2π)d2V0′′(h)D02(h)(k2+μ2)2+ω2=AdμϵϵV0′′(h)V0(h)+O(ϵ0).\delta V(h)=\frac{1}{2}\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\frac{d^{d}k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{2V_{0}^{\prime\prime}(h)}{D_{0}^{2}(h)(k^{2}+\mu^{2})^{2}+\omega^{2}}=A_{d}\frac{\mu^{-\epsilon}}{\epsilon}\frac{V_{0}^{\prime\prime}(h)}{V_{0}^{\prime}(h)}+O(\epsilon^{0}). (S10)

Taking a derivative w.r.t. μ\mu at fixed V0V_{0}, and then replacing V0VV_{0}\to V, we obtain the RG flow for the full potential V(h)V(h) to leading order in ϵ\epsilon as

μμV(h)=14πμϵV′′(h)V(h).\displaystyle-\mu\partial_{\mu}V(h)=\frac{1}{4\pi}\mu^{-\epsilon}\frac{V^{\prime\prime}(h)}{V^{\prime}(h)}. (S11)

This equation can alternatively be obtained from the exact RG functional equation for Γ[ϕ]\Gamma[\phi]. The general exact RG method was developed in Wetterich (1993); Morris (1994) and leads to an exact RG equation for the functional Γ[ϕ]\Gamma[\phi] (see also Section 3 in Balents and Le Doussal (2005) for a simplified summary). To arrive at (S11) requires truncations, which can be performed in a systematic way in a multilocal expansion Schehr and Le Doussal (2003); Le Doussal (2010), and within a controlled dimensional expansion near d=2d=2. These truncations can be performed more generally within the non-perturbative FRG approach, which was applied to the anisotropic version of the model (erosion) in Duclut and Delamotte (2017); Duclut (2017). Here we consider perturbative FRG applied to the isotropic model.

Comparison with the RG flow of Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995). Let us now compare our functional RG flow (S11) to the one displayed in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995). To this aim we define a scaled potential V^\hat{V} via

V(h)=μϵ/2ν1/2V^(H=ν1/2μϵ/2h),V^(H)=H+n2gnn!Hn\displaystyle V(h)=\mu^{-\epsilon/2}\nu^{1/2}\hat{V}(H=\nu^{1/2}\mu^{\epsilon/2}h)\quad,\quad\hat{V}(H)=H+\sum_{n\geq 2}\frac{g_{n}}{n!}H^{n} (S12)

where the gng_{n} are the dimensionless couplings defined in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995). Note that V,V~,ν,gnV,\tilde{V},\nu,g_{n} implicitly depend on ν\nu. By definition one has V(0)=νV^{\prime}(0)=\nu and V~(0)=1\tilde{V}^{\prime}(0)=1. Taking derivatives at h=0h=0 of the RG flow equation (S11), and using (S12), we first obtain the flow of the diffusivity ν\nu as

μμlogν=14π(g3g22)-\mu\partial_{\mu}\log\nu=\frac{1}{4\pi}(g_{3}-g_{2}^{2}) (S13)

which coincides (23a) in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995). Using (S13) and (S12), taking into account that ν\nu also depends on μ\mu via (S13) we obtain

μμg2=12g2ϵ+18π(2g49g2g3+7g23)\displaystyle-\mu\partial_{\mu}g_{2}=\frac{1}{2}g_{2}\epsilon+\frac{1}{8\pi}(2g_{4}-9g_{2}g_{3}+7g_{2}^{3}) (S14)
μμg3=ϵg3+18π(2g58g2g410g32+28g22g312g24)\displaystyle-\mu\partial_{\mu}g_{3}=\epsilon g_{3}+\frac{1}{8\pi}(2g_{5}-8g_{2}g_{4}-10g_{3}^{2}+28g_{2}^{2}g_{3}-12g_{2}^{4}) (S15)

which is in agreement with (23b) in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995) (their βn\beta_{n} functions have by definition the opposite sign and there is an obvious sign misprint in the first term of their β2\beta_{2}).

It was argued in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995) that the infinite-dimensional space of the couplings gng_{n} has a two dimensional surface of fixed points {gn}\{g_{n}^{*}\} parameterized by the values of g2g_{2}^{*} and g3g_{3}^{*}, and the conclusion was that studying the nature of these fixed points is a difficult task. The authors of Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995) summarize: ”The general conclusion is pessimistic: the problem of building a satisfactory microtheory of the given phenomenon remains unresolved.” In fact this problem can not be resolved once one truncates the βn\beta_{n} as done in Antonov and Vasil’Ev (1995). Indeed, as we show below, the fixed point is selected by the large hh behavior of the bare V0(h)V_{0}(h) and to identify it one needs to consider the full functional flow.

I.3 Critical exponents

The critical exponents are associated to scale invariant solutions of the RG flow. Let us first examine the form that these solutions can take. To analyze (S11) let us replace the variable μ\mu by the variable

u=14πμμ0𝑑μ/(μ)1+ϵ,u=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{\mu}^{\mu_{0}}d\mu^{\prime}/(\mu^{\prime})^{1+\epsilon}\color[rgb]{0.00,0.00,1.00}{,} (S16)

where μ0\mu_{0} is the bare IR cutoff, and we are interested in the limit μ0\mu\to 0. In that limit we see that uμϵ/ϵu\sim\mu^{-\epsilon}/\epsilon for ϵ>0\epsilon>0, and u=14πlog(μ0/μ)u=\frac{1}{4\pi}\log(\mu_{0}/\mu) in d=2d=2. As we pointed out in the main text, the running derivative of the potential, which we denote Du(h)=V(h)D_{u}(h)=V^{\prime}(h) (indicating the explicit uu dependence) satisfies (taking h\partial_{h} in (S11)) a logarithmic PME

uDu(h)=h2logDu(h)\partial_{u}D_{u}(h)=\partial_{h}^{2}\log D_{u}(h) (S17)

As we will discuss in Sec. II this equation admits the so-called self-similar solutions of the form

Du(h)=u12aF(uah),D_{u}(h)=u^{1-2a}F(u^{-a}h), (S18)

where FF is a fixed function with F(0)F(0) finite, and the exponent aa takes some given value (depending on ss, see below). Since the self-similar solutions of the form (S18) lead to scale-invariant behavior and can act as attractors in the large uu limit, they can be referred to as fixed points of the RG flow.

Recalling that uμϵu\sim\mu^{-\epsilon} where μ1/L\mu\sim 1/L is the IR cutoff, we have uLϵu\sim L^{\epsilon} where LL is the system size. The form of the fixed point solution (S18) implies the scaling behavior

huaLαwithα=aϵh\sim u^{a}\sim L^{\alpha}\quad\text{with}\quad\alpha=a\epsilon (S19)

Let us recall that the bare two point height correlator reads in Fourier, from the second derivative [S(2)(0)1]hh[S^{(2)}(0)^{-1}]_{hh} in (S4) (or equivalently from (S1))

hk,ωhk,ω0=2σ0ω2+ν02k4×(2π)d+1δ(d)(k+k)δ(ω+ω).\langle h_{k,\omega}h_{k^{\prime},\omega^{\prime}}\rangle_{0}=\frac{2{\sigma_{0}}}{\omega^{2}+\nu_{0}^{2}k^{4}}\times(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta^{(d)}(k+k^{\prime})\delta(\omega+\omega^{\prime}). (S20)

The exact (renormalized) correlator is similarly obtained from the second derivative matrix [Γ(2)(0)1]hh[\Gamma^{(2)}(0)^{-1}]_{hh} and takes the scaling form (setting σ=σ0=1{\sigma}={\sigma_{0}}=1) for small k,ωk,\omega

hk,ωhk,ω1ν(k)2k4𝒢(ων(k)k2)×(2π)d+1δ(d)(k+k)δ(ω+ω),𝒢(y)=2y2+1+O(ϵ),\langle h_{k,\omega}h_{k^{\prime},\omega^{\prime}}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{\nu(k)^{2}k^{4}}{\cal G}\left(\frac{\omega}{\nu(k)k^{2}}\right)\times(2\pi)^{d+1}\delta^{(d)}(k+k^{\prime})\delta(\omega+\omega^{\prime}),\quad\quad{\cal G}(y)=\frac{2}{y^{2}+1}+O(\epsilon), (S21)

where as follows from (S18)

ν(k)ν|μk=Du(0)|ukϵk(12a)ϵ.\nu(k)\sim\nu|_{\mu\sim k}=D_{u}(0)|_{u\sim k^{-\epsilon}}\sim k^{-(1-2a)\epsilon}. (S22)

This implies that the dynamical exponent defined by ωkz\omega\sim k^{z} is

z=2ϵ(12a)=d+2αz=2-\epsilon(1-2a)=d+2\alpha (S23)

and obeys the general relation given in the text. Furthermore from (S21) we see that in real space the equal time correlation

h(x,t)h(x,t)=dω2πddk(2π)d1ν(k)2k4𝒢(ων(k)k2)L2aϵL2α\langle h(x,t)h(x^{\prime},t)\rangle=\int\frac{d\omega}{2\pi}\int\frac{d^{d}k}{(2\pi)^{d}}\frac{1}{\nu(k)^{2}k^{4}}{\cal G}\left(\frac{\omega}{\nu(k)k^{2}}\right)\sim L^{2a\epsilon}\sim L^{2\alpha} (S24)

consistent with the prediction for the roughness exponent given by (S19).

II Functional RG flow: fixed points and their stability

The RG flow equation (S17),

uDu(h)=h2logDu(h),\partial_{u}D_{u}(h)=\partial_{h}^{2}\log D_{u}(h), (S25)

is itself a logarithmic fast diffusion equation, which represents a limiting case (s0s\to 0) of the fast diffusion equations, i.e. PMEs with s<1s<1, see Chap 8. in Vázquez (2006) for details and applications. The solutions of these non-linear diffusion equations are expected to asymptotically approach, for large uu, a self-similar solution, independently of the initial condition D0(h)D_{0}(h). In the RG picture this self-similar solution corresponds to a fixed point. We consider the forward or type I self-similar solutions of the form (S18),

Du(h)=u12aFu(hua)D_{u}(h)=u^{1-2a}F_{u}(hu^{-a}) (S26)

with Fu(H)F_{u}(H) independent of uu for large uu, which we denote F(H)F(H). The RG flow for Fu(H)F_{u}(H) reads

uuFu(H)=aHFu(H)(12a)Fu(H)+Fu′′(H)Fu(H)Fu(H)2Fu(H)2u\partial_{u}F_{u}(H)=aHF_{u}^{\prime}(H)-(1-2a)F_{u}(H)+\frac{F^{\prime\prime}_{u}(H)}{F_{u}(H)}-\frac{F^{\prime}_{u}(H)^{2}}{F_{u}(H)^{2}} (S27)

where primes mean the derivative w.r.t. HH. A self-similar solution is given by function F(u)F(u) which satisfies Eq. (11),

aHF(H)(12a)F(H)+F′′(H)F(H)F(H)2F(H)2=0.aHF^{\prime}(H)-(1-2a)F(H)+\frac{F^{\prime\prime}(H)}{F(H)}-\frac{F^{\prime}(H)^{2}}{F(H)^{2}}=0. (S28)

Note that if F(H)F(H) is a solution of this equation, then b2F(bh)b^{2}F(bh) is also a solution for any bb.

For the problem studied in this paper we will eventually restrict to solutions where F(H)F(H) is finite and positive for all HH and even in HH. However we will first study the most general solutions of (S28).

II.1 Classification of fixed points: Phase-plane formalism

In order to classify all possible self-similar solutions and identify their properties, we can apply the phase-plane formalism see e.g. Section 3.8.2. in Vázquez (2006). To that end, we rewrite equation (S28) for F(H)F(H) as an autonomous system of two first-order differential equations for the functions X(r)=HFFX(r)=\frac{HF^{\prime}}{F} and Y(r)=H2FY(r)=H^{2}F, which does not explicitly depend on r=lnHr=\ln H,

X˙\displaystyle\dot{X} =\displaystyle= X+(12aaX)Y,\displaystyle X+(1-2a-aX)Y, (S29)
Y˙\displaystyle\dot{Y} =\displaystyle= (2+X)Y,\displaystyle(2+X)Y, (S30)

where X˙=ddrX\dot{X}=\frac{d}{dr}X and so on. Each solution to the system (S29)-(S30) corresponding to a self-similar solution F(H)F(H) can be represented by an integral curve in the phase plane (X,Y)(X,Y). Only one integral curve passes through each point in the phase plane. The system (S29)-(S30) has several singular points in the phase plane (X,Y)(X,Y) and each solution corresponds to an integral curve connecting two of them. Expansion around singular points provides us the asymptotic behavior of F(H)F(H) for H0H\to 0 (in the case of starting point) and HH\to\infty (in the case of ending point). Thus the analysis of the singular points of the system gives exhaustive list of all fixed points with their asymptotic behavior for large and small HH.

One can rewrite the system  (S29)-(S30) as a single differential equation,

dYdX=(2+X)YX+(12aaX)Y.\displaystyle\frac{dY}{dX}=\frac{(2+X)Y}{X+(1-2a-aX)Y}. (S31)

We consider the fixed points with F>0F>0, and thus, we look only at the integral curves in the upper plane Y>0Y>0. The integral curves connecting different singular points in the phase plane (X,Y)(X,Y) for a=1/3a=1/3 and a=1/3a=-1/3 are shown in Fig. 5. The system has two finite singular points in the plane (X,Y)(X,Y): A=(0,0)A=(0,0) and B=(2,2)B=(-2,2) whose position does not depend on aa, and three points at infinity: C=(2+1a,)C=(-2+\frac{1}{a},\infty), D=(,0)D=(-\infty,0), E=(sign(a),)E=(-\infty\ \mathrm{sign}(a),\infty).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 5: Integral curves in the phase-plane (X,Y)(X,Y). Left panel for a=1/3a=1/3 and right panel for a=1/3a=-1/3. There are 5 singular points A,B (in the plane) and C,D,E (at infinity). Note that for a<0a<0 and a>0a>0 the points C and E exchange their positions. Each curve connecting two singular points corresponds to a self-similar solution F(H)F(H). The behavior at starting singular point gives asymptotic of F(H)F(H) for H0H\to 0 and at the ending point for HH\to\infty. Only curves starting at point A give the solutions finite at H=0H=0.

We now study the asymptotic behavior at each of these singular points, and identify among them repeller and sink points which can be only starting or ending points for the integral curves.

(A) Expanding the system of equations (S29)-(S30) around point A we obtain

X˙\displaystyle\dot{X} =\displaystyle= X+(12a)Y,\displaystyle X+(1-2a)Y, (S32)
Y˙\displaystyle\dot{Y} =\displaystyle= 2Y.\displaystyle 2Y. (S33)

Diagonalizing it, we find the eigenvalues λ1,2={1,2}\lambda_{1,2}=\{1,2\}. Thus the point A is a repeller and the integral curves can only start at it. Equation (S33) implies Y(r)=CH2Y(r)=CH^{2} for small HH, where CC is a constant. This leads to F(H)=CF(H)=C at H=0H=0 for all solutions which start at point A.

(B) Expanding around point B: X=2+xX=-2+x and Y=2+yY=2+y we obtain to linear order

x˙\displaystyle\dot{x} =\displaystyle= (12a)x+y,\displaystyle(1-2a)x+y, (S34)
y˙\displaystyle\dot{y} =\displaystyle= 2x.\displaystyle 2x. (S35)

Computing the eigenvalues we find λ1,2={12((2a1)2+82a+1)<0,12((2a1)2+82a+1)>0}\lambda_{1,2}=\left\{\frac{1}{2}\left(-\sqrt{(2a-1)^{2}+8}-2a+1\right)<0,\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{(2a-1)^{2}+8}-2a+1\right)>0\right\} for all aa. Thus the point B is a saddle point: there are integral curves starting and ending at the point B. Close to B the solution behaves as F(H)=YH2=2H2+y(H)H2F(H)=\frac{Y}{H^{2}}=\frac{2}{H^{2}}+\frac{y(H)}{H^{2}} for small HH if it is a starting point and for large HH is it an ending point.

(C) Close to the singular point C the solution has the form

X\displaystyle X \displaystyle\approx Xc=(12a)/a,\displaystyle X_{c}=(1-2a)/a, (S36)
Y\displaystyle Y =\displaystyle= Cexp((2+Xc)r)=CH2+Xc.\displaystyle C\exp((2+X_{c})r)=CH^{2+X_{c}}. (S37)

This point is a sink point for a>0a>0 with the asymptotic behavior F(H)=CHXcF(H)=CH^{X_{c}} for large HH, and a repeller point for a<0a<0 with F(H)=CHXcF(H)=CH^{X_{c}} for small HH. In the latter case the solution F(H)F(H) diverges at the origin since Xc<2X_{c}<-2 for a<0a<0.

(D) Close to the point D the system can be simplified to

X˙\displaystyle\dot{X} =\displaystyle= X,\displaystyle X, (S38)
Y˙\displaystyle\dot{Y} =\displaystyle= XY.\displaystyle XY. (S39)

This point is a sink. The solution in its vicinity is given by X(r)=C1erX(r)=-C_{1}e^{r} and Y(r)=C2exp[C1er]Y(r)=C_{2}\exp[-C_{1}e^{r}] with constants C1,2>0C_{1,2}>0. The corresponding solutions have the asymptotic behavior of the form F(H)eC1HH2F(H)\sim\frac{e^{-C_{1}H}}{H^{2}} for large HH.

(E) Close to the point E the system can be simplified to

X˙\displaystyle\dot{X} =\displaystyle= aXY,\displaystyle-aXY, (S40)
Y˙\displaystyle\dot{Y} =\displaystyle= XY,\displaystyle XY, (S41)

whose solution, X(r)=C1/(1eC1rC2)X(r)=C_{1}/(1-e^{C_{1}r-C_{2}}) and Y(r)=C1/[a(1eC1r+C2)]Y(r)=C_{1}/[a(1-e^{-C_{1}r+C_{2}})], diverges at finite r0=C2/C1r_{0}=C_{2}/C_{1}. The singular point E is a sink for a<0a<0 and a repeller for a>0a>0. Thus, for a<0a<0 the corresponding self-similar solution F(H)=Y(lnH)/H2F(H)=Y(\ln H)/H^{2} is defined for H[0,H0)H\in[0,H_{0}) with H0=er0H_{0}=e^{r_{0}} and diverges in the limit HH0H\to H_{0}^{-}, while for a>0a>0 it is defined for H(H0,)H\in(H_{0},\infty) and diverges in the limit HH0+H\to H_{0}^{+}. The above form of X(r)X(r) and Y(r)Y(r) implies the asymptotic behavior F(H)C1aH2((H0H)C11)F(H)\simeq-\frac{C_{1}}{aH^{2}\left(\left(\frac{H_{0}}{H}\right)^{C_{1}}-1\right)} slightly below H0=eC2/C1H_{0}=e^{C_{2}/C_{1}} for a<0a<0 and above H0H_{0} for a>0a>0. Expanding it in a Laurent series near the pole H=H0H=H_{0}, we obtain F(H)=1/[aH0(HH0)]+O((HH0)0)F(H)=1/[aH_{0}(H-H_{0})]+O\left((H-H_{0})^{0}\right). The coefficient in the leading term is exact, as we checked numerically at fixed a<0a<0.

For a=0a=0 the system (S29)-(S30) simplifies to

X˙\displaystyle\dot{X} =\displaystyle= X+Y,\displaystyle X+Y, (S42)
Y˙\displaystyle\dot{Y} =\displaystyle= (2+X)Y,\displaystyle(2+X)Y, (S43)

whose solution is X(r)=±erC1tan[12c1(C2±er)]X(r)=\pm e^{r}\sqrt{C_{1}}\tan\left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{c_{1}}\left(C_{2}\pm e^{r}\right)\right] and Y(r)=12e2rC1sec2[12C1(C2±er)]Y(r)=\frac{1}{2}e^{2r}C_{1}\sec^{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{C_{1}}\left(C_{2}\pm e^{r}\right)\right]. This leads to an exact self-similar solution F(H)=12C1sec2[12C1(C2±H)]F(H)=\frac{1}{2}C_{1}\sec^{2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{C_{1}}(C_{2}\pm H)\right]. This solution is negative for C1<0C_{1}<0 and decays as F(H)exp[|C1|H]F(H)\sim-\exp[-\sqrt{|C_{1}|}H] for large HH. For C1>0C_{1}>0 it diverges at finite H0=±C1C2+(2n1)πC1H_{0}=\pm\frac{\sqrt{C_{1}}C_{2}+(2n-1)\pi}{\sqrt{C_{1}}}, nn\in\mathbb{Z} as F(H)=2/(HH0)2+O((HH0)0)F(H)=2/{(H-H_{0})^{2}}+O\left((H-H_{0})^{0}\right).

We are now in the position to analyze all possible self-similar solutions. Here we restrict ourselves to the solutions which are finite in the vicinity of the origin H=0H=0. Only the solutions represented by the integral curves starting at point AA satisfy this condition. There are four different classes of such solutions corresponding to the integral curves connecting the point A with points B,C, D or E:

(ABA\to B) This solution decays as F(H)1/H2F(H)\sim 1/H^{2} for large HH.

(ACA\to C) This solution exists only for a>0a>0 and behaves as F(H)H2+1/aF(H)\sim H^{-2+1/a} for large HH.

(ADA\to D) This solution decays as F(H)eC1HH2F(H)\sim\frac{e^{-C_{1}H}}{H^{2}} for large HH.

(AEA\to E) This solution exists only for a0a\leq 0 and diverges at finite H=H0H=H_{0}.

Let us give here some additional properties, as well as a few exact solutions which can be obtained for some values of aa

For a=1a=1 there is a special solution

F(H)=11+12H2F(H)=\frac{1}{1+\frac{1}{2}H^{2}} (S44)

which is a limiting case of a more general family of solutions for a=1a=1

F(H)=c12c12c2ec1Hc1H1F(H)=\frac{c_{1}^{2}}{c_{1}^{2}c_{2}e^{c_{1}H}-c_{1}H-1} (S45)

which however are not even in HH, except in the limit c10,c2=1/c12+1c_{1}\to 0,c_{2}=1/c_{1}^{2}+1 where one recovers (S44).

For a=0a=0 there is a solution of the form

F(H)=12(1+tan(H2)2)F(H)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1+\tan\left(\frac{H}{2}\right)^{2}\right) (S46)

which is even but diverges at H=πH=\pi. As discussed above, there are additional solutions, which however are not even or not positive.

Remark. For 0<a<10<a<1 the fixed point F(H)F(H) behaves at large |H||H| as F(H)|H|s1F(H)\sim|H|^{s-1} with a=1/(1+s)a=1/(1+s). One can check that it takes the form F(H)=|H|s1g(1/|H|s+1)F(H)=|H|^{s-1}g(1/|H|^{s+1}), where the function g(z)g(z) satisfies a closed differential equation. Solving in an expansion at large |H||H|, one finds g(z)=1+n1gnzng(z)=1+\sum_{n\geq 1}g_{n}z^{n} with g1=1sg_{1}=1-s, g2=12(1s)(1+s)(2+s)g_{2}=\frac{1}{2}(1-s)(1+s)(2+s), and so on (up to the rescaling b2F(bH)b^{2}F(bH)). Most notably we find the leading correction is always (s1)/H2(s-1)/H^{2}, with a universal coefficient (i.e independent of bb). This remark helps to understand the structure of the flow towards the fixed point, see below.

II.2 Numerical calculation of fixed points

We now study numerically the solutions of (S28). Since the flow (S25) preserves the parity of Du(h)D_{u}(h), and the initial conditions D(h)=D0(h)D(h)=D_{0}(h) considered in this paper are even functions, it follows that we should focus on F(H)F(H) even, positive, with F(0)F(0) finite and F(0)=0F^{\prime}(0)=0. Moreover, if F(H)F(H) is a solution to Eq. (S28), then b2F(Hb)b^{2}F(Hb) is also a solution. Hence, we can impose the condition F(0)=1F(0)=1. To perform numerical integration, we first transform equation (S28) into a system of two first-order differential equations for FF and G:=FG:=F^{\prime}:

G(H)=G(H)2F(H)+(12a)F(H)2aHG(H)F(H)\displaystyle G^{\prime}(H)=\frac{G(H)^{2}}{F(H)}+(1-2a)F(H)^{2}-aHG(H)F(H) (S47)
F(H)=G(H).\displaystyle F^{\prime}(H)=G(H). (S48)

Starting from the chosen initial conditions, F(0)=1F(0)=1 and G(0)=0G(0)=0, we employ a fifth-order Runge-Kutta integration scheme to solve the system numerically.

According to the classification of possible fixed points performed in Sec. II.1 we expect four different types of solutions. In Fig. 6 Left, we recover two of them:

  • the class (AEA\to E). For a<0a<0, F(H)F(H) diverges at finite HH, and for a=0a=0, we recover the exact solution F(H)=(1+tan(H/2)2)/2F(H)=(1+\tan(H/2)^{2})/2.

  • the class (ACA\to C). Shown here for 0<a<1/20<a<1/2, the solutions exhibit an asymptotic behavior F(H)|H|2+1/aF(H)\sim|H|^{-2+1/a}.

In Fig. 6 Right, we recover the remaining cases:

  • the class (ACA\to C). Shown here for 1/2<a<11/2<a<1 when F(H)|H|2+1/aF(H)\sim|H|^{-2+1/a} decreases with HH

  • the class (ABA\to B). For a=1a=1, we recover the exact solution F(H)=1/(1+H2/2)1/H2F(H)=1/(1+H^{2}/2)\sim 1/H^{2}.

  • the class (ADA\to D). For a>1a>1, we find solutions that decay exponentially.

Note that the behavior of F(H)F(H) changes qualitatively at a=0a=0 and a=1a=1.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 6: Solution F(H)F(H) of (S27) for different values of aa. Left: a<1/2a<1/2. For 0<a<1/20<a<1/2, the solution shows an asymptotic behavior H2+1/a\sim H^{-2+1/a} at large HH, while it diverges at finite H=H0H=H_{0} as 1/(H0H)\sim 1/(H_{0}-H) for a<0a<0 and 1/(H0H)2\sim 1/(H_{0}-H)^{2} for a=0a=0. Right: a>1/2a>1/2, For 1>a>1/21>a>1/2, F(H)F(H) decreases at large HH as H2+1/a\sim H^{-2+1/a}. At a=1a=1, the asymptotic behavior changes and F(H)=1/(1+H2/2)1/H2F(H)=1/(1+H^{2}/2)\sim 1/H^{2}. For a>1a>1, we show in the inset that the semilogarithmic plot of F(H)F(H) is well fitted by a straight line at large HH, thus F(H)F(H) decays exponentially in HH.

II.3 Linear stability analysis

Finding the fixed points alone is insufficient, as they may not be relevant. Therefore, we analyze their stability to determine whether the fixed points are attractive. Here will restrict the analysis to the power law case 0<a<10<a<1 (ACA\to C) , although some of the equations below are more general. We examine the linear stability of the fixed point F(H)F(H) using the flow equation (S25). To achieve this, we linearize the equation (S25) around the fixed point F(H)F(H) by introducing a perturbation Φ\Phi, defined as:

Du(h)=u12aFu(H=uah)=u12a(F(H)+δFu(H)),δFu(H)=Φ(H)eλlnu,D_{u}(h)=u^{1-2a}F_{u}(H=u^{-a}h)=u^{1-2a}(F(H)+\delta F_{u}(H))\quad,\quad\delta F_{u}(H)=\Phi(H)e^{\lambda\ln{u}}, (S49)

where λ\lambda is the eigenvalue that we aim to estimate. We must restrict to perturbations Φ(H)\Phi(H) which are smaller or at most of order F(H)|H|1a2F(H)\sim|H|^{\frac{1}{a}-2} at large |H||H|. Indeed, if it is not the case these will flow to another fixed point characterized by a smaller value of aa. The fixed point will be stable if no such perturbation exist with a strictly positive eigenvalue. By substituting (S49) into the flow equation (S25) and expanding to linear order in Φ\Phi, we derive the following linear differential equation for Φ\Phi:

0=(λΦ)(H)=Φ′′(H)Φ(H)(2F(H)F(H)aHF(H))+Φ(H)[aHF(H)(24a+λ)F(H)+F(H)2F(H)2].0=({\cal L}_{\lambda}\Phi)(H)=\Phi^{\prime\prime}(H)-\Phi^{\prime}(H)\left(2\frac{F^{\prime}(H)}{F(H)}-aHF(H)\right)+\Phi(H)\left[aHF^{\prime}(H)-(2-4a+\lambda)F(H)+\frac{F^{\prime}(H)^{2}}{F(H)^{2}}\right]. (S50)

Equivalently, the flow of a perturbation of the fixed point Fu=F+δFuF_{u}=F+\delta F_{u} is given by uuδFu=1F0δFuu\partial_{u}\delta F_{u}=\frac{1}{F}{\cal L}_{0}\delta F_{u} and we want to find the spectrum of 0{\cal L}_{0}, i.e. its eigenvalues λ\lambda and associated eigenvectors Φ\Phi, such that δFu=uλΦ\delta F_{u}=u^{\lambda}\Phi.

We have studied the equation (S50) analytically and numerically. From parity one must choose Φ(0)=0\Phi^{\prime}(0)=0, and since it is a linear equation we can choose Φ(0)=1\Phi(0)=1. For the numerical integration, we simultaneously solve for FF and Φ\Phi by converting the two second-order equations into a system of four first-order equations for FF, FF^{\prime}, Φ\Phi, and Φ\Phi^{\prime}. As previously done for FF, we use a Runge-Kutta integration scheme. The only parameter is λ\lambda.

We have found the following results:

  • There are two exact eigenvectors related to symmetries: The first symmetry is Fb2F(bh)F\to b^{2}F(bh), which gives the exact eigenvalue λ=0\lambda=0 corresponding to the eigenvector Φ(H)=F(H)+12HF(H)\Phi(H)=F(H)+\frac{1}{2}HF^{\prime}(H) (for an analogous analysis see e.g. Eqs (S.29 ) and (S.32) in Balog et al. (2017, 2018)). It behaves at large |H||H| as Φ(H)|H|1a2\Phi(H)\sim|H|^{\frac{1}{a}-2}.

  • The second symmetry is uu+u0u\to u+u_{0}, which gives the exact eigenvalue λ=1\lambda=-1 corresponding to the eigenvector Φ(H)=F(H)11/a2HF(H)\Phi(H)=F(H)-\frac{1}{1/a-2}HF^{\prime}(H). It behaves at large |H||H| as Φ(H)1/H2\Phi(H)\sim 1/H^{2}.

  • There is a continuum spectrum with eigenvectors which behave as power laws Φ(H)|H|1a2δ\Phi(H)\sim|H|^{\frac{1}{a}-2-\delta} with eigenvalue λ=aδ\lambda=-a\delta and δ>0\delta>0. This value of λ\lambda can be simply verified by injecting the large |H||H| behavior in (S50). The existence of these eigenvectors is easily checked numerically.

  • In addition to the continuum spectrum there is a discrete spectrum which correspond to eigenvectors with fast decay at large |H||H| (stretched exponential). The most relevant one has eigenvalue λ=a1\lambda=a-1. It can be found exactly as follows. Consider the change of function

    Φ(H)=F(H)e12HaHFΨ(H)\Phi(H)=F(H)e^{-\frac{1}{2}\int^{H}aHF}\Psi(H) (S51)

    Then (S50) is equivalent to the Schrodinger problem

    0=λΨ=Ψ′′+Vλ(H)Ψ\displaystyle 0={\cal H}_{\lambda}\Psi=-\Psi^{\prime\prime}+V_{\lambda}(H)\Psi (S52)
    Vλ(H)=W(H)+W(H)2+(λ(a1))F,W(H)=a2HF(H)\displaystyle V_{\lambda}(H)=W^{\prime}(H)+W(H)^{2}+(\lambda-(a-1))F\quad,\quad W(H)=-\frac{a}{2}HF(H) (S53)

    Hence Ψ(H)\Psi(H) must be a zero energy eigenvector of the Schrodinger problem in the potential Vλ(H)V_{\lambda}(H). For the case λ=a1\lambda=a-1, we see that Vλ(H)V_{\lambda}(H) has the familiar form which arises in supersymmetric quantum mechanics, and an eigenvector is then

    Ψ(H)=ea2H𝑑HHF(H),Φ(H)=F(H)eaH𝑑HHF(H)\Psi(H)=e^{-\frac{a}{2}\int^{H}dH^{\prime}H^{\prime}F(H^{\prime})}\quad,\quad\Phi(H)=F(H)e^{-a\int^{H}dH^{\prime}H^{\prime}F(H^{\prime})} (S54)

    which has a fast decay at infinity. Hence we have found an exact eigenfunction Φ(H)\Phi(H), associated to the eigenvalue λ=a1\lambda=a-1, of our original problem. Interestingly it behaves at large |H||H| as |H|s1exp(γ|H|s+1)|H|^{s-1}\exp(-\gamma|H|^{s+1}), reminiscent of the behavior of P(h)P(h) in (S66) (although we could not see any obvious relation). Next, since one can write λ=QQ+(λ(a1))F{\cal H}_{\lambda}=Q^{\dagger}Q+(\lambda-(a-1))F with Q=HWQ=\partial_{H}-W, we see that no fast decaying eigenvector can exist for λ>a1\lambda>a-1 since then λ{\cal H}_{\lambda} must have a positive spectrum. Finally note that in the Ψ\Psi variable the linearized flow equation reads uuΨ=1F0Ψu\partial_{u}\Psi=-\frac{1}{F}{\cal H}_{0}\Psi.

    We have confirmed the above result by computing numerically the eigenvector for λ=a1\lambda=a-1, and we have other fast decaying eigenvector Φ\Phi for a set of discrete values of λ\lambda, which are all smaller than a1a-1. In order to identify these eigenvalues numerically, we note that Φ(H)\Phi(H) is a smooth function of λ\lambda as the differential equation is linear. Therefore, when H+H\to+\infty, we have Φ(H)A(λ)Hw\Phi(H)\sim\frac{A(\lambda)}{H^{w}}, where A(λ)A(\lambda) is a smooth function of λ\lambda. Therefore, to find a function Φ\Phi with exponential decay, A(λ)=0A(\lambda)=0 must hold. One can then assume that AA changes sign near this root.

Finally, we have shown that, for 0<a<10<a<1, eigenvectors are associated to negative eigenvalues, provided they decay faster than F(H)F(H) at large HH. Hence these fixed points are stable.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 7: (Left) Plot of Φ(H)\Phi(H) for a=1/3a=1/3, s=2s=2 , and several λ\lambda. For λ=0,1/3,1/2\lambda=0,-1/3,-1/2, one retrieves the power law eigenvectors with Φ(H)|H|2+1/a+λ/a\Phi(H)\sim|H|^{-2+1/a+\lambda/a} for large HH. For λ=a1=2/3\lambda=a-1=-2/3, we retrieve an eigenvector with fast decay as predicted. (Right) Same for a=2/3a=2/3, s=1/2<1s=1/2<1. We also retrieves the power law eigenvectors, and the fast decay occurs here at λ=a1=1/3\lambda=a-1=-1/3

II.4 Basin of attraction

We previously showed that the fixed points found of the form Du(h)=u12aF(uah)D_{u}(h)=u^{1-2a}F(u^{-a}h) are stable for 0<a<10<a<1. A more precise test consists in starting from the initial conditions D(h)=D0(h)D(h)=D_{0}(h) and checking that the RG flow indeed converges towards the self-similar solutions obtained earlier. To evaluate numerically the flow equation

uDu(h)=h2logDu(h),\partial_{u}D_{u}(h)=\partial_{h}^{2}\log D_{u}(h), (S55)

we consider a large finite grid {hi}\{h_{i}\} of spacing dhdh: {LR,LR+dh,,LRdh,LR}\{-L_{R},-L_{R}+dh,\dots,L_{R}-dh,L_{R}\}. We evaluate the discrete Laplacian using (f(hi+1)+f(hi1)2f(hi))/dh2(f(h_{i+1})+f(h_{i-1})-2f(h_{i}))/dh^{2}. At the boundaries, we take the Laplacian to be equal to the one evaluated in respectively 22 and N1N-1. We then integrate with respect to uu using a Euler scheme with an integration step dudu.

We focus on the case s>0s>0. In particular, in the main text, we considered s=1/2s=1/2 and s=2s=2. For s=2s=2, we take the initial condition D0(h)=24+h2D_{0}(h)=2\sqrt{4+h^{2}}, which is analytic in h=0h=0, LR=50L_{R}=50 and du=3e5du=3e-5. For s=1/2s=1/2, we consider D0(h)=1/2(1/44+h2)1/4D_{0}(h)=1/2(1/4^{4}+h^{2})^{-1/4} and LR=50L_{R}=50. For large hh, since one has D0(h)1/|h||log(D0(h))||log|h||D_{0}(h)\sim 1/\sqrt{|h|}\ll|\log{(D_{0}(h))}|\sim|\log{|h|}|, it is necessary to use a smaller integration step du=5e7du=5e-7. In Fig. 2 of the main text, we show that, in both cases, under the RG flow equation (S55) the asymptotic behavior at large |h||h| is preserved, and that Fu(H)F_{u}(H) converges towards the self-similar fixed point F(H)F(H) with the asymptotic behavior (ACA\to C), and the corresponding parameter a=11+sa=\frac{1}{1+s}. This confirms that the fixed points studied previously are stable, and more importantly, that they attract the functions D(h)=D0(h)D(h)=D_{0}(h) of the form chosen in this paper.

Thanks to linear stability analysis, we can elucidate the approach to the fixed point, Fu(H)F(H)uλΦ(H)F_{u}(H)-F(H)\sim u^{\lambda}\Phi(H) by determining the largest eigenvalue λ\lambda and the form of its corresponding eigenvector Φ(H)\Phi(H). Apart from a discrete set of eigenvectors that decay exponentially fast, with the largest eigenvalue being λexp=a1\lambda_{\rm exp}=a-1, all other eigenvectors exhibit power-law decays. There are potentially two relevant power-law eigenvectors.

  • Starting from initial conditions of the form D0(h)C1hs1+C2hs1γD_{0}(h)\simeq C_{1}h^{s-1}+C_{2}h^{s-1-\gamma}, the second term will be corrected during the flow and decay with eigenvalue λγ=aγ=γ/(s+1)\lambda_{\gamma}=-a\gamma=-\gamma/(s+1) (given that 0<a<10<a<1).

  • Recall that the fixed point takes the form F(H)Hs1+g1/H2F(H)\sim H^{s-1}+g_{1}/H^{2}. The second power law will arise during the flow and is associated to the eigenvalue λF=1\lambda_{F}=-1.

Therefore, the largest eigenvalue is either λexp\lambda_{\rm exp}, λγ\lambda_{\gamma} or λF\lambda_{F}. However, the latter is always irrelevant since λF=1<a1=λexp\lambda_{F}=-1<a-1=\lambda_{\rm exp}. Ultimately, we find that the largest eigenvalue and the form of its corresponding eigenvector depend on the values of γ\gamma and a=1/(1+s)a=1/(1+s). For γ<s\gamma<s, λγ=aγ>a1=λexp\lambda_{\gamma}=-a\gamma>a-1=\lambda_{\rm exp}, and the largest eigenvalue is λγ=γ/(s+1)\lambda_{\gamma}=-\gamma/(s+1), leading to Φ(H)Hs1γ\Phi(H)\sim H^{s-1-\gamma} decaying as a power-law. For γ>s\gamma>s, the largest eigenvalue is λexp=a1\lambda_{\rm exp}=a-1, and the leading eigenvector Φ(H)\Phi(H) decays exponentially fast in HH. This is illustrated in Fig. 8. On the left, starting from initial conditions D0(h)=12(1/44+h2)1/42h1/2h5/2/29D_{0}(h)=\frac{1}{2\left(1/4^{4}+h^{2}\right)^{1/4}}\simeq 2h^{-1/2}-h^{-5/2}/2^{9}, corresponding to s=1/2s=1/2 and γ=2\gamma=2, we expect the largest correction of |F(H)Fu(H)||F(H)-F_{u}(H)| to scale as ua1=u1/3u^{a-1}=u^{1/3}. The eigenvector Φ(H)\Phi(H) is given by (S54), up to a constant, chosen to match the behavior at H=0H=0. Φ(H)\Phi(H) indeed decays exponentially in HH, although there is a slight difference with the analytical solution, likely caused by the finite uu. On the right panel, the initial condition is D0(h)=1+h2D_{0}(h)=1+h^{2}, corresponding to s=3s=3 and γ=2\gamma=2. In this case, γ<s\gamma<s, and the largest eigenvalue is aγ=1/2-a\gamma=-1/2. Its corresponding eigenvector behaves as Φ(H)1\Phi(H)\sim 1 in the limit HH\to\infty. Both these properties are checked numerically in Fig. 8.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 8: RG flow near the fixed point |F(H)Fu(H)||F(H)-F_{u}(H)| rescaled by uλu^{\lambda}, with λ\lambda the predicted largest eigenvalue. (Left panel) Starting from D0(h)=(1/44+h2)0.25/2D_{0}(h)=\left(1/4^{4}+h^{2}\right)^{-0.25}/2 (s=0.5s=0.5), with λ=a1=1/3\lambda=a-1=-1/3. Its corresponding eigenvector in black dotted lines decays exponentially (Right panel) Starting from D0(h)=1+h2D_{0}(h)=1+h^{2} (s=3s=3). One has λ=1/2\lambda=-1/2 with its corresponding eigenvectors of order 11 when HH\to\infty

III Predictions from the random walk model

The random walk model allows for very detailed predictions. We will study the discrete random walk model but at large scale one can use a continuum description which we will also study.

III.1 Second moment, scaling and anomalous scaling

We consider the random walk model

hn+1=hn+1D(hn)ξnh_{n+1}=h_{n}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(h_{n})}}\xi_{n} (S56)

for n0n\geq 0, where the ξn\xi_{n} are i.i.d Gaussian random variables with unit variance. The trajectory of the walker can be identified with an interface in the stationary regime, and its position corresponds to the height of the interface. We recall that at large hh one has D(h)c|h|s1D(h)\simeq c|h|^{s-1}. The increments being independent the variance of the height differences is equal to

(hn+hn)2=m=nn+11D(hm)\langle(h_{n+\ell}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle=\sum_{m=n}^{n+\ell-1}\langle\frac{1}{D(h_{m})}\rangle (S57)

This relation is exact for any n0n\geq 0. We now consider a random walk with an initial position h0=O(1)h_{0}=O(1). At large nn, we assume the scaling relation hnnαh~h_{n}\sim n^{\alpha}\tilde{h}, where α\alpha is the Hurst exponent and h~\tilde{h} is the rescaled height, a random variable that is independent of nn. The one point distribution of h~\tilde{h} is discussed in Section III.2. Now we determine the exponent α\alpha using a self-consistent argument. Using (S57) one obtains

hn2=m=0n11D(hm)\langle h_{n}^{2}\rangle=\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\langle\frac{1}{D(h_{m})}\rangle (S58)

For s>0s>0 and for large nn, we can estimate the r.h.s as

m=0n11D(hm)1cm=0n1|hm|1s1cm=0n1mα(1s)|h~|1s1c(1+α(1s))n1+α(1s)|h~|1s\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\langle\frac{1}{D(h_{m})}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{c}\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}\langle|h_{m}|^{1-s}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{c}\sum_{m=0}^{n-1}m^{\alpha(1-s)}\langle|\tilde{h}|^{1-s}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{c(1+\alpha(1-s))}n^{1+\alpha(1-s)}\langle|\tilde{h}|^{1-s}\rangle (S59)

while the l.h.s. behaves as hn2h~2n2α\langle h_{n}^{2}\rangle\simeq\langle\tilde{h}^{2}\rangle n^{2\alpha}. Equating both determines α\alpha and gives a relation between the moments of h~\tilde{h}

α=11+s,h~2=s+12c|h~|1s\alpha=\frac{1}{1+s}\quad,\quad\langle\tilde{h}^{2}\rangle=\frac{s+1}{2c}\langle|\tilde{h}|^{1-s}\rangle (S60)

Note that the exponent of the random walk model coincides with our result for the global roughness exponent for the interface, given in the text. Furthermore, we now demonstrate that the random walk exhibits anomalous scaling behavior, as observed numerically for the stationary interface in Figure 3 of the main text. Let us evaluate the variance of the height difference using (S57). In the right hand side we can write for n1n\gg 1 and any 1\ell\geq 1

(hn+hn)2=m=nn+11D(hm)1ch~1sp=01(n+p)(1s)/(1+s)=1ch~1s(ζ(1ss+1,n)ζ(1ss+1,+n))\langle(h_{n+\ell}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle=\sum_{m=n}^{n+\ell-1}\langle\frac{1}{D(h_{m})}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{c}\langle\tilde{h}^{1-s}\rangle\sum_{p=0}^{\ell-1}(n+p)^{(1-s)/(1+s)}=\frac{1}{c}\langle\tilde{h}^{1-s}\rangle\left(\zeta\left(\frac{1-s}{s+1},n\right)-\zeta\left(\frac{1-s}{s+1},\ell+n\right)\right) (S61)

where ζ(a,x)\zeta(a,x) is the Hurwitz zeta function. There are two regimes.

In the first regime n\ell\ll n, which is relevant for the study of local properties, one can neglect the dependence in pp in the sum in (S61) and one finds an anomalous scaling:

(hn+hn)21ch~1sn2α1\langle(h_{n+\ell}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{c}\langle\tilde{h}^{1-s}\rangle n^{2\alpha-1}\,\ell (S62)

This corresponds, for all s>0s>0, to a local roughness exponent for the random walk:

αloc(q=2)=12\alpha_{\rm loc}(q=2)=\frac{1}{2} (S63)

In the second regime, =O(n)\ell=O(n), one recovers the global scaling, more precisely

(hn+hn)21ch~1sn2αf(λ=/n),f(λ)=s+12((1+λ)2/(s+1)1)\langle(h_{n+\ell}-h_{n})^{2}\rangle\simeq\frac{1}{c}\langle\tilde{h}^{1-s}\rangle n^{2\alpha}f(\lambda=\ell/n)\quad,\quad f(\lambda)=\frac{s+1}{2}((1+\lambda)^{2/(s+1)}-1) (S64)

We observe that the two regimes match when λ0\lambda\to 0.

III.2 Distribution of the increments and multiscaling

In order to obtain the local roughness exponents αloc(q)\alpha_{\rm loc}(q) for any qq and the multiscaling properties of the random walk, one must study the distribution of the increments. To this aim we more information about the distribution of the scaled height h~=hn/nα\tilde{h}=h_{n}/n^{\alpha}. At large nn it becomes well described by a continuum model for a height field h(x)h(x) which obeys the Ito stochastic equation dh(x)=1D(h(x))dB(x)dh(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(h(x))}}dB(x) where B(x)B(x) is a Brownian motion. The one point PDF of h(x)h(x), P(h,x)P(h,x) satisfies the Fokker-Planck equation

xP(h,x)=12h2(P(h,x)/D(h))\partial_{x}P(h,x)=\frac{1}{2}\partial_{h}^{2}(P(h,x)/D(h)) (S65)

This equation and the stochastic process are studied in Section, where we show that at large xx, using D(h)c|h|s1D(h)\simeq c|h|^{s-1} with initial condition h0=h(0)=O(1)h_{0}=h(0)=O(1), the PDF takes the scaling form

P(h,x)121x1/(1+s)P~(|h|/x1/(1+s))\displaystyle P(h,x)\simeq\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{x^{1/(1+s)}}\tilde{P}(|h|/x^{1/(1+s)}) (S66)
P~(h~)=𝒩|h~|s1e2c|h~|s+1(s+1)2,𝒩=(2c)ss+1s(s+1)2ss+1Γ(2s+1s+1)\displaystyle\tilde{P}(\tilde{h})=\mathcal{N}|\tilde{h}|^{s-1}e^{-\frac{2c|\tilde{h}|^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}}}\quad,\quad\mathcal{N}=\frac{(2c)^{\frac{s}{s+1}}s(s+1)^{-\frac{2s}{s+1}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{2s+1}{s+1}\right)} (S67)

which is normalized as +𝑑hP(h,x)=1\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}dhP(h,x)=1 while 0+𝑑h~P~(h~)=1\int_{0}^{+\infty}d\tilde{h}\tilde{P}(\tilde{h})=1. One can check explicitly that the moment relation in (S60) holds exactly for this scaled variable h~\tilde{h}. Hence we can identify this variable h~\tilde{h} in the discrete and the continuum model.

Distribution of the local increment

We start by computing the distribution of the increment of length 11 in the discrete model Δ=hn+1hn\Delta=h_{n+1}-h_{n} for large nn. In this case, the discrete setting is particularly convenient as this increment is exactly Gaussian for a given hnh_{n} , hence its distribution is given by

Qn(Δ)𝑑hD(h)2πeD(h)Δ22P(h,n)Q_{n}(\Delta)\simeq\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dh\sqrt{\frac{D(h)}{2\pi}}e^{-\frac{D(h)\Delta^{2}}{2}}P(h,n)\\ (S68)

where we use the continuum formula (S66) for the PDF of hnh_{n} with xnx\simeq n. Depending of the value of Δ\Delta the region in hh which dominate the integral are different. Let us consider first the case where the integral is dominated by values of |h|1|h|\gg 1 so that we can replace D(h)c|h|s1D(h)\simeq c|h|^{s-1}. Inserting (S66) we obtain

Qn(Δ)𝒩c2π1ns/(1+s)0𝑑hh32(s1)echs1Δ222chs+1n(s+1)2\displaystyle Q_{n}(\Delta)\simeq\mathcal{N}\sqrt{\frac{c}{2\pi}}\frac{1}{n^{s/(1+s)}}\int_{0}^{\infty}dhh^{\frac{3}{2}(s-1)}e^{-\frac{ch^{s-1}\Delta^{2}}{2}-\frac{2ch^{s+1}}{n(s+1)^{2}}} (S69)

Upon rescaling h=n1/(1+s)h~h=n^{1/(1+s)}\tilde{h} one obtains

Qn(Δ)n12αQ~(Δn12α)\displaystyle Q_{n}(\Delta)\simeq n^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}\tilde{Q}(\Delta n^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}) (S70)
Q~(Δ~)=𝒩c2π0𝑑h~h~32(s1)ech~s1Δ~222ch~s+1(s+1)2\displaystyle\tilde{Q}(\tilde{\Delta})=\mathcal{N}\sqrt{\frac{c}{2\pi}}\int_{0}^{\infty}d\tilde{h}\tilde{h}^{\frac{3}{2}(s-1)}e^{-\frac{c\tilde{h}^{s-1}\tilde{\Delta}^{2}}{2}-\frac{2c\tilde{h}^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}}} (S71)

For s>1s>1 and in the large Δ~\tilde{\Delta} limit, the integral is dominated by small h~\tilde{h} and one can neglect the second term in the exponential. One finds that the function Q~\tilde{Q} has a power law tail

Q~(Δ~)C|Δ~|(3+2s1),C=𝒩π2ss1Γ(32+1s1)css1(s1)\tilde{Q}(\tilde{\Delta})\simeq C|\tilde{\Delta}|^{-(3+\frac{2}{s-1})}\quad,\quad C=\frac{\mathcal{N}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\frac{2^{\frac{s}{s-1}}\Gamma\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{s-1}\right)}{c^{\frac{s}{s-1}}(s-1)} (S72)

where we used 0𝑑uu32(s1)eaus1=a11s32Γ(32+1s1)s1\int_{0}^{\infty}duu^{\frac{3}{2}(s-1)}e^{-au^{s-1}}=\frac{a^{\frac{1}{1-s}-\frac{3}{2}}\Gamma\left(\frac{3}{2}+\frac{1}{s-1}\right)}{s-1}. This power law tail is valid for s>1s>1, and the tail exponent diverges as s1s\to 1. In summary we thus obtain for s>1s>1

Qn(Δ){n1/2α,|Δ|nα1/2nss+1|Δ|(3+2s1),nα1/2|Δ|\displaystyle Q_{n}(\Delta)\sim\begin{cases}n^{1/2-\alpha}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\quad,\quad|\Delta|\ll n^{\alpha-1/2}\\ n^{-\frac{s}{s+1}}|\Delta|^{-(3+\frac{2}{s-1})}\quad,\quad n^{\alpha-1/2}\ll|\Delta|\end{cases} (S73)

Note that the power law extends up to an upper cutoff of the order Δmax1/D(0)\Delta_{\max}\sim 1/\sqrt{D(0)}, which is determined by D(0)D(0) (assuming here that D(h)D(h) is an increasing function of hh).

For 0<s<10<s<1, h~s1Δ\tilde{h}^{s-1}\Delta is a decreasing function of h~\tilde{h}, and one can evaluate S71 using a saddle point method. Upon the change of variable h~=vΔ~\tilde{h}=v\tilde{\Delta} one can rewrite

Q~(Δ~)=𝒩c2π|Δ~|32s120+dvv32(s1)ec|~Δ|s+1f(v),f(v)=121v1s+2(s+1)2vs+1\tilde{Q}(\tilde{\Delta})=\mathcal{N}\sqrt{\frac{c}{2\pi}}|\tilde{\Delta}|^{\frac{3}{2}s-\frac{1}{2}}\int_{0}^{+\infty}dvv^{\frac{3}{2}(s-1)}e^{-c\tilde{|}\Delta|^{s+1}f(v)}\quad,\quad f(v)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{v^{1-s}}+\frac{2}{(s+1)^{2}}v^{s+1} (S74)

The function f(v)f(v) has a single minimum at v=vc=121s2v=v_{c}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-s^{2}}, and one obtains at large Δ~\tilde{\Delta} the saddle point estimate

Q~(Δ~)𝒩s+12s(1s2)(1s)/21|Δ~|1se21sc(s+1)(1s2)(1s)/2|Δ~|s+1\tilde{Q}(\tilde{\Delta})\simeq\mathcal{N}\frac{\sqrt{s+1}}{2^{s}(1-s^{2})^{(1-s)/2}}\frac{1}{|\tilde{\Delta}|^{1-s}}e^{-\frac{2^{1-s}c}{(s+1)(1-s^{2})^{(1-s)/2}}|\tilde{\Delta}|^{s+1}} (S75)

Hence for 0<s<10<s<1 the decay is a stretched exponential with an exponent 1<s+1<21<s+1<2.

While the distribution of the increments of length 1 provides insights into the behavior of the random walk, it is necessary to also compute the distribution of the increments of arbitrary small length n\ell\ll n to obtain the multiscaling properties, to which we now turn.

Distribution of the height differences

To compute the distribution of the height differences hn+hnh_{n+\ell}-h_{n} and their moments we will again resort to the continuum model defined above, which becomes exact for large n,1n,\ell\gg 1. The correspondence is nxn\to x and y\ell\to y. In section LABEL: we derive the propagator of the continuum process with D(h)=c|h|s1D(h)=c|h|^{s-1}, which is simple when considering the absolute value |h(x)||h(x)|. Its expression reads

P(|h|,x||h0|,0)=2c(s+1)x|h0||h|s12e2c(|h|s+1+|h0|s+1)(s+1)2xI1s+1(4c|h|s+12|h0|s+12(s+1)2x)P(|h|,x||h_{0}|,0)=\frac{2c}{(s+1)x}\sqrt{|h_{0}|}|h|^{s-\frac{1}{2}}e^{-\frac{2c\left(|h|^{s+1}+|h_{0}|^{s+1}\right)}{(s+1)^{2}x}}I_{-\frac{1}{s+1}}\left(\frac{4c|h|^{\frac{s+1}{2}}|h_{0}|^{\frac{s+1}{2}}}{(s+1)^{2}x}\right) (S76)

which is the probability that the absolute value of the height h(z)h(z) is |h||h| at z=xz=x, given that it is |h0||h_{0}| at z=0z=0. It is normalized to unity when integrating |h||h| from 0 to +[+\infty[. One can check that P(|h|,x||h0|,0)P(|h|,x||h_{0}|,0) has a limit when h00h_{0}\to 0 which coincides exactly with the one-point PDF of |h||h| given in (S66).

This setting is convenient to compute the probability of the increment of the absolute value of the height, Δ=|h(x+y)||h(x)|\Delta=|h(x+y)|-|h(x)|, which we do below. We consider the regime yxy\ll x, in which case, as we argue below, h(x+y)h(x+y) and h(x)h(x) typically share the same sign, such that the increments of |h||h| and of hh have similar distributions. Using the Markov property of the process, and choosing the initial condition h0=0h_{0}=0, we can write

Px,y(Δ)=max(0,Δ)+𝑑hP(h+Δ,x+y|h,x)P(h,x|0,0)=max(0,Δ)+𝑑hP(h+Δ,y|h,0)P(h,x|0,0)=2𝒩s+1cxss+1ymax(0,Δ)+𝑑hhs1/2(h+Δ)s1/2e2c((h+Δ)s+1+hs+1)(s+1)2yI1s+1(4c(h+Δ)s+12hs+12(s+1)2y)e2chs+1(s+1)2x\begin{split}&P_{x,y}(\Delta)=\int_{\max(0,-\Delta)}^{+\infty}dhP(h+\Delta,x+y|h,x)P(h,x|0,0)=\int_{\max(0,-\Delta)}^{+\infty}dhP(h+\Delta,y|h,0)P(h,x|0,0)\\ &=\frac{2\mathcal{N}}{s+1}\frac{c}{x^{\frac{s}{s+1}}y}\int_{\max(0,-\Delta)}^{+\infty}dhh^{s-1/2}(h+\Delta)^{s-1/2}e^{-\frac{2c\left((h+\Delta)^{s+1}+h^{s+1}\right)}{(s+1)^{2}y}}I_{-\frac{1}{s+1}}\left(\frac{4c(h+\Delta)^{\frac{s+1}{2}}h^{\frac{s+1}{2}}}{(s+1)^{2}y}\right)e^{-\frac{2ch^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}x}}\end{split} (S77)

We recall the asymptotics, Iν(z)ez/(2πz)I_{\nu}(z)\simeq e^{z}/(\sqrt{2\pi z}) for z1z\gg 1, and e12(a2+b2)Iν(ab)e12(ab)2/2πabe^{-\frac{1}{2}(a^{2}+b^{2})}I_{\nu}(ab)\simeq e^{-\frac{1}{2}(a-b)^{2}}/\sqrt{2\pi ab} for a,b1a,b\gg 1.

The contribution of the integral for hyαh\gg y^{\alpha} takes the form

Px,y(Δ)𝒩2πcxss+1yyα+𝑑hh3(s1)/4(h+Δ)3(s1)/4e2c((h+Δ)(s+1)/2h(s+1)/2)2(s+1)2ye2chs+1(s+1)2x\displaystyle P_{x,y}(\Delta)\simeq\frac{\mathcal{N}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\sqrt{c}}{x^{\frac{s}{s+1}}\sqrt{y}}\int_{y^{\alpha}}^{+\infty}dhh^{3(s-1)/4}(h+\Delta)^{3(s-1)/4}e^{-\frac{2c\left((h+\Delta)^{(s+1)/2}-h^{(s+1)/2}\right)^{2}}{(s+1)^{2}y}}e^{-\frac{2ch^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}x}} (S78)

Consider now |Δ|yα|\Delta|\ll y^{\alpha}, one can expand in Δ\Delta and this contribution becomes

Px,y(Δ)𝒩2πcxss+1yyα+𝑑hh3(s1)/2ecΔ2hs12ye2chs+1(s+1)2xP_{x,y}(\Delta)\simeq\frac{\mathcal{N}}{\sqrt{2\pi}}\frac{\sqrt{c}}{x^{\frac{s}{s+1}}\sqrt{y}}\int_{y^{\alpha}}^{+\infty}dhh^{3(s-1)/2}e^{-\frac{c\Delta^{2}h^{s-1}}{2y}}e^{-\frac{2ch^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}x}} (S79)

which, for y=1y=1 and x=nx=n is exactly the result in (S69), obtained for the discrete model. We verify below that this indeed represents the relevant contribution for |Δ|yα|\Delta|\ll y^{\alpha}. This result indicates that for u[x,x+y]u\in[x,x+y] with xyx\ll y, the function h(u)h(u) typically maintains the same sign. Consequently, the distribution of the increments of hh and of |h||h| are similar. Hence, for |Δ|yα|\Delta|\ll y^{\alpha}, the scaling function is given by

Px,y(Δ)x12αy12Q~(Δx12αy12),P_{x,y}(\Delta)\simeq x^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}y^{-\frac{1}{2}}\tilde{Q}\left(\Delta x^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}y^{-\frac{1}{2}}\right), (S80)

where the function Q~\tilde{Q} has been calculated in the previous section, see Eq. (S71).

To obtain the behavior for large Δyα\Delta\gg y^{\alpha}, we need to examine the contribution from small hyαh\ll y^{\alpha} to the integral in (LABEL:eq:expprobdiff). We focus first on Δ>0\Delta>0 for clarity. Since in that regime one has hΔh\ll\Delta one can expand the argument of the exponential in small hh which gives an upper cutoff on hh of order y/Δsy/\Delta^{s}. This implies that the argument of the Bessel function is small, and we can use the asymptotic form Iν(z)zν2νΓ(1+ν)I_{\nu}(z)\sim\frac{z^{\nu}}{2^{\nu}\Gamma(1+\nu)} for z1z\ll 1. Recalling that we consider here yxy\ll x, we obtain the contribution

Px,y(Δ)𝒩(s+1)1ss+1Γ(ss+1)(2c)ss+1xss+1y0yα𝑑hy11+shs1(h+Δ)s1e2c((h+Δ)s+1+hs+1)(s+1)2y.P_{x,y}(\Delta)\simeq\mathcal{N}\frac{(s+1)^{\frac{1-s}{s+1}}}{\Gamma\left(\frac{s}{s+1}\right)}\frac{(2c)^{\frac{s}{s+1}}}{x^{\frac{s}{s+1}}y}\int_{0}^{y^{\alpha}}dh\,y^{\frac{1}{1+s}}h^{s-1}(h+\Delta)^{s-1}e^{-\frac{2c\left((h+\Delta)^{s+1}+h^{s+1}\right)}{(s+1)^{2}y}}. (S81)

First note that for Δyα\Delta\ll y^{\alpha}, this term is indeed negligible compared to (S80), Indeed, it is of order xs/(s+1)y(s1)/(s+1)\sim x^{-s/(s+1)}y^{(s-1)/(s+1)}, which is precisely the same order as is reached in (S80) far in the tail for Δyα\Delta\sim y^{\alpha} as can be checked using the asymptotics (S72) of the scaling function Q~\tilde{Q}. This justifies a posteriori the above claim that the integral in (LABEL:eq:expprobdiff) is dominated by hyαh\gg y^{\alpha} when Δyα\Delta\ll y^{\alpha}.

Returning to the case Δyα\Delta\gg y^{\alpha}, we see that in the region of integration, hyαΔh\ll y^{\alpha}\ll\Delta, we can expand to first order in hh. By making the change of variable u=h2cΔsy(s+1)u=h\frac{2c\Delta^{s}}{y(s+1)}, we obtain

Px,y(Δ)𝒩(s+1)s2+1s+1Γ(s)Γ(ss+1)(2c)s21+sys21+sxs1+sΔs2+1se2cΔs+1(s+1)2y.P_{x,y}(\Delta)\simeq\mathcal{N}\frac{(s+1)^{\frac{s^{2}+1}{s+1}}\Gamma(s)}{\Gamma\left(\frac{s}{s+1}\right)(2c)^{\frac{s^{2}}{1+s}}}\frac{y^{\frac{s^{2}}{1+s}}}{x^{\frac{s}{1+s}}\Delta^{s^{2}+1-s}}e^{-\frac{2c\Delta^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}y}}. (S82)

where we have used that 02cyα1Δs(s+1)2𝑑uus1euΓ(s)\int_{0}^{\frac{2cy^{\alpha-1}\Delta^{s}}{(s+1)^{2}}}du\,u^{s-1}e^{-u}\simeq\Gamma(s) which holds since we consider the case Δyα\Delta\gg y^{\alpha}, yα1Δs1y^{\alpha-1}\Delta^{s}\gg 1. Note that, whether we consider the region of integration hyαh\leq y^{\alpha} or hyαh\geq y^{\alpha}, there is an exponential cutoff at hcy/Δsyαh_{c}\sim y/\Delta^{s}\ll y^{\alpha}. Therefore, the first region is the relevant one.

In summary we find that the PDF of the increments, Px,y(Δ)P_{x,y}(\Delta), takes schematically the form, for yxy\ll x and s>1s>1

Px,y(Δ){x12αy12,|Δ|xα1/2y1/2xss+1yss1|Δ|(3+2s1),xα12y12|Δ|yα\displaystyle P_{x,y}(\Delta)\sim\begin{cases}x^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}y^{-\frac{1}{2}}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\quad,\quad|\Delta|\ll x^{\alpha-1/2}y^{1/2}\\ x^{-\frac{s}{s+1}}y^{\frac{s}{s-1}}|\Delta|^{-(3+\frac{2}{s-1})}\quad,\quad x^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}y^{-\frac{1}{2}}\ll|\Delta|\ll y^{\alpha}\end{cases} (S83)

with a stretched exponential decay given by (S82) for Δ\Delta larger than the cutoff yα\sim y^{\alpha}. Note that in the case Δ<0\Delta<0, we can see from Eq.(LABEL:eq:expprobdiff) that making the change of variable h=h+Δh^{\prime}=h+\Delta leads to the same equation as for Δ>0\Delta>0, except that the last term is replaced by e2c(h+|Δ|)s+1(s+1)2xe^{-\frac{2c(h+|\Delta|)^{s+1}}{(s+1)^{2}x}}. However, as we assumed yxy\ll x, the dependence in Δ\Delta in this term turns out to be irrelevant in all the regimes that we considered. This is presumably a signature that for yxy\ll x there are essentially no sign changes of hh.

For s<1s<1 there is no power law behavior for the increment distribution and one finds instead a stretched exponential form

Px,y(Δ){x12αy12,|Δ|xα1/2y1/2xs(1s)2(s+1)ys21|Δ|1sebs|Δxα12y12|s+1,xα12y12|Δ|\displaystyle P_{x,y}(\Delta)\sim\begin{cases}x^{\frac{1}{2}-\alpha}y^{-\frac{1}{2}}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}~{}\quad,\quad|\Delta|\ll x^{\alpha-1/2}y^{1/2}\\ x^{\frac{-s(1-s)}{2(s+1)}}y^{-\frac{s}{2}}\frac{1}{|\Delta|^{1-s}}e^{-b_{s}\left|\frac{\Delta}{x^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}y^{\frac{1}{2}}}\right|^{s+1}}\quad,\quad x^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}y^{-\frac{1}{2}}\ll|\Delta|\end{cases} (S84)

where the stretched exponential constant is given by bs=21sc(s+1)(1s2)(1s)/2b_{s}=\frac{2^{1-s}c}{(s+1)(1-s^{2})^{(1-s)/2}}.

Moments of the height differences

We can now compute the moments of order qq of the height increments, Δ=|h(x+y)||h(x)|\Delta=|h(x+y)|-|h(x)|, from its distribution in the case yxy\ll x. For s>1s>1, there are two regimes in qq.

In the first regime, for q<qcq<q_{c}, one can use (S80) which leads to

|Δ|qcqyq2xq(α12),q<qc=2+2s1\displaystyle\langle|\Delta|^{q}\rangle\simeq c_{q}y^{\frac{q}{2}}x^{q\,(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})}\quad,\quad q<q_{c}=2+\frac{2}{s-1} (S85)

where cq=+𝑑Δ~|Δ~|qQ~(Δ~)c_{q}=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}d\tilde{\Delta}|\tilde{\Delta}|^{q}\tilde{Q}(\tilde{\Delta}) is a ss-dependent amplitude equal to the qq-th moment of the scaled distribution given in (S80) and (S71). We recall that α=1/(s+1)\alpha=1/(s+1). Since this distribution has a power law tail Q~(Δ~)Δ~(3+2/(s1))\tilde{Q}(\tilde{\Delta})\sim\tilde{\Delta}^{-(3+2/(s-1))}, see (S72), this can only hold for q<qc=2+2s1q<q_{c}=2+\frac{2}{s-1}, as cqc_{q} diverges as qqcq\to q_{c}^{-}.

For q>qcq>q_{c} the moment is instead dominated by the cutoff of the distribution of Δ\Delta, which has a fast stretched exponential decay, see (S82) which leads to

|Δ|qyqα+ss+1xss+1,q>qc\displaystyle\langle|\Delta|^{q}\rangle\sim y^{q\alpha+\frac{s}{s+1}}x^{-\frac{s}{s+1}}\quad,\quad q>q_{c} (S86)

For q=2q=2, note that, using (S80), one retrieves exactly (S62) obtained in the discrete setting. Recalling that the local roughness exponent is defined by |Δ|q1/qyαloc(q)xααloc(q)\langle|\Delta|^{q}\rangle^{1/q}\sim y^{\alpha_{\rm loc}(q)}x^{\alpha-\alpha_{\rm loc}(q)}, one thus finds for s>1s>1

αloc(q){12,q<qcα+1qss+1,qc<q.\displaystyle\alpha_{\text{loc}}(q)\sim\begin{cases}\frac{1}{2}~{}~{}~{}~{}\quad,\quad q<q_{c}\\ \alpha+\frac{1}{q}\frac{s}{s+1}\quad,\quad q_{c}<q.\end{cases} (S87)

For s1s\to 1, one has α=αloc(q)=1/2\alpha=\alpha_{\text{loc}}(q)=1/2 and qc+q_{c}\to+\infty thus retrieving the standard EW scaling.

In the case s<1s<1, since the distribution of increments has a fast stretched exponential decay, see (S75), there is a single regime in qq, with no multiscaling, and one finds, using (S80) and (S71), that the moments behave as

|Δ|qcqyq2xq(α12)\displaystyle\langle|\Delta|^{q}\rangle\simeq c_{q}y^{\frac{q}{2}}x^{q\,(\alpha-\frac{1}{2})} (S88)

leading to a local exponent αloc(q)=1/2\alpha_{\text{loc}}(q)=1/2 for s<1s<1.

IV Solution of the continuum random walk model

The continuum model is defined by the Ito stochastic equation for h(x)h(x)

dh(x)=1D(h(x))dB(x)dh(x)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(h(x))}}dB(x) (S89)

where D(h)D(h) is a positive even function of hh with D(0)D(0) finite.

IV.1 Mapping to a Langevin equation

One can transform this equation into one with additive noise. We introduce the function 𝖸(h)=0h𝑑hD(h){\sf Y}(h)=\int_{0}^{h}dh\sqrt{D(h)}. We consider the process Y(x)=𝖸(h(x))Y(x)={\sf Y}(h(x)). Then using Ito rule, we obtain that it obeys the stochastic equation

dY(x)=dB(x)+14D(h(x))D(h(x))3/2dxdY(x)=dB(x)+\frac{1}{4}\frac{D^{\prime}(h(x))}{D(h(x))^{3/2}}dx (S90)

Inverting Y=𝖸(h)Y={\sf Y}(h) as h=𝗁(Y)h={\sf h}(Y), the process Y(x)=Y(h(x))Y(x)=Y(h(x)) satisfies now the following Langevin equation with additive noise and with a drift

dY=dB(x)U(Y)dx,U(Y)=14D(𝗁(Y))D(𝗁(Y))3/2dY=dB(x)-U^{\prime}(Y)dx\quad,\quad-U^{\prime}(Y)=\frac{1}{4}\frac{D^{\prime}({\sf h}(Y))}{D({\sf h}(Y))^{3/2}} (S91)

which describes thermal motion (at temperature 1/21/2) in the potential U(Y)=14logD(h(Y))U(Y)=-\frac{1}{4}\log D(h(Y)).

Equivalently, one can perform the same transformation on the Fokker Planck equation. The PDF of h(x)h(x) satisfies (S65). Defining the PDF of Y(x)Y(x) as Q(Y,x)Q(Y,x), one obtains the relation P(h,x)=D(h)Q(Y,x)P(h,x)=\sqrt{D(h)}Q(Y,x). Inserting in (S65) and using h=Y(h)Y=D(h)Y\partial_{h}=Y^{\prime}(h)\partial_{Y}=\sqrt{D(h)}\partial_{Y}, one obtains the Fokker Planck equation for Q(Y,x)Q(Y,x)

xQ=Y(12YQ+U(Y)Q)\partial_{x}Q=\partial_{Y}(\frac{1}{2}\partial_{Y}Q+U^{\prime}(Y)Q) (S92)

where U(Y)U^{\prime}(Y) is given in (S91). This is indeed the FP associated to the process (S91).

Note that it admits formally a zero current equilibrium Gibbs measure Q0(Y)e2U(Y)=D(Y)Q_{0}(Y)\sim e^{-2U(Y)}=\sqrt{D(Y)}, i.e. P0(h)=D(h)P_{0}(h)=D(h), which however is normalizable only if D(h)D(h) decays faster than 1/h1/h, i.e. s<0s<0., which is not the regime considered here.

IV.2 Power law D(h)D(h) and mapping to a Bessel process

Let us now specialize to the power law case D(h)=c|h|s1D(h)=c|h|^{s-1}. In that case one has

D(h)=c|h|s1,𝖸(h)=c2s+1|h|s+12sgnh,𝗁(Y)=(s+12cY)2/(s+1)sgnY,D(Y)=(c1s1s+12|Y|)2(s1)s+1D(h)=c|h|^{s-1}~{},~{}{\sf Y}(h)=\sqrt{c}\frac{2}{s+1}|h|^{\frac{s+1}{2}}{\rm sgn}h~{},~{}{\sf h}(Y)=(\frac{s+1}{2\sqrt{c}}Y)^{2/(s+1)}{\rm sgn}Y~{},~{}D(Y)=(c^{\frac{1}{s-1}}\frac{s+1}{2}|Y|)^{\frac{2(s-1)}{s+1}} (S93)

The potential U(Y)U(Y) is then U(Y)=s12(s+1)log|Y|U(Y)=-\frac{s-1}{2(s+1)}\log|Y|. It is thus repulsive for s>1s>1 and attractive towards Y=0Y=0 for 0<s<10<s<1. In both cases however for s>0s>0, YY undergoes unbounded diffusion in the potential U(Y)U(Y), and obeys the stochastic equation

dY=dB(t)U(Y)=dB(t)+s12(s+1)1Y\displaystyle dY=dB(t)-U^{\prime}(Y)=dB(t)+\frac{s-1}{2(s+1)}\frac{1}{Y} (S94)

Thus one finds that up to its sign, Y(x)Y(x) is a Bessel process. More precisely

Y(x)=(sgnY(x))R(x),|Y(x)|=R(x)Y(x)=({\rm sgn}Y(x))R(x)\quad,\quad|Y(x)|=R(x) (S95)

Here R(x)R(x) is a Bessel process Wikipedia contributors (2024), which is defined as the Euclidean norm of the dd dimensional Brownian motion 𝐖(x){\bf W}(x). One has

R(x)=||𝐖(x)||,d=2ss+1=2ν+2,ν=11+sR(x)=||{\bf W}(x)||\quad,\quad d=\frac{2s}{s+1}=2\nu+2\quad,\quad\nu=-\frac{1}{1+s} (S96)

where W(x)W(x) is the dd-dimensional BM. Thus one finds that Y(x)Y(x) is recurrent for any s>0s>0, since d<2d<2 and 𝐖(x)||{\bf W}(x)|| crosses infinitely often the origin.

To use the properties of the Bessel process we will study |Y(x)||Y(x)|. The propagator of the Bessel process, Q(|Y|,x||Y0|,0)Q(|Y|,x||Y_{0}|,0), is known and reads for ν>1\nu>-1 (i.e. for s>0s>0)

Q(|Y|,x||Y0|,0)=|Y|ν+1Y0νeY2Y022xIν(|Y|Y0x)x,ν=11+sQ(|Y|,x||Y_{0}|,0)=\frac{|Y|^{\nu+1}Y_{0}^{-\nu}e^{\frac{-Y^{2}-Y_{0}^{2}}{2x}}I_{\nu}\left(\frac{|Y|Y_{0}}{x}\right)}{x}\quad,\quad\nu=-\frac{1}{1+s} (S97)

where IνI_{\nu} is the modified Bessel function. One can check that the current near Y=0+Y=0^{+}

j(Y,x)=YQ+2ν+12YQ(2(1+ν)xY02)Y2+2νj(Y,x)=-\partial_{Y}Q+\frac{2\nu+1}{2Y}Q\propto(2(1+\nu)x-Y_{0}^{2})Y^{2+2\nu} (S98)

vanishes for ν>1\nu>-1, which corresponds to reflecting boundary conditions.

Finally, using that |Y|=c2s+1|h|(s+1)/2|Y|=\sqrt{c}\frac{2}{s+1}|h|^{(s+1)/2}, we readily obtain the propagator in the hh variable, which is given in (S76).

Remark. Note that the above continuum model (S89) was studied previously in Fa and Lenzi (2003), where the one-point distribution was obtained, as well as very recently in Del Vecchio and Majumdar (2024), although by different methods, and focusing on different observables, such as first passage and occupation times.

Remark The present model is also related to the ABBM model of avalanches, see e.g. Eq (213) in Le Doussal and Wiese (2009). The identification is thus u=xu=x and

𝗏(u)Y(x),m2v=d12=s12(s+1),σ=1/2{\sf v}(u)\equiv Y(x)\quad,\quad m^{2}v=\frac{d-1}{2}=\frac{s-1}{2(s+1)}\quad,\quad\sigma=1/2 (S99)

Our present RW model corresponds to the limit m0m\to 0. The avalanche exponent (231) for the ABBM model is

τ=2d2=32m2V2σ=2+s1+s\tau=2-\frac{d}{2}=\frac{3}{2}-\frac{m^{2}V}{2\sigma}=\frac{2+s}{1+s} (S100)

Here it describes the distribution of the xx where the process h(x)h(x) returns to zero (up to some small cutoff, see discussion in (232) there).

V Numerical results

V.1 Numerical details

We use an Euler integration scheme to integrate Eq.(2), namely

hn(t+Δt)=hn(t)+Δt[D(hn(t))(hn+1(t)hn(t))+D(hn1(t))(hn1(t)hn(t))]+2ΔtRn(t),h_{n}(t+\Delta t)=h_{n}(t)+\Delta t\left[D(h_{n}(t))(h_{n+1}(t)-h_{n}(t))+D(h_{n-1}(t))(h_{n-1}(t)-h_{n}(t))\right]+2\sqrt{\Delta t}R_{n}(t), (S101)

where Rn(t)R_{n}(t) is a Gaussian random variable with unit variance, and Δt\Delta t is the integration step. To ensure numerical stability, the integration step Δt|D(hn)(hn+1hn)+D(hn1)(hn1hn)|\Delta t\,|D(h_{n})(h_{n+1}-h_{n})+D(h_{n-1})(h_{n-1}-h_{n})| should be small compared to hnh_{n}. This requires a small Δt\Delta t when s>1s>1, hh large. Knowing that htβ=t1/(3+s)h\sim t^{\beta}=t^{1/(3+s)} and D(h)hs1D(h)\sim h^{s-1}, we therefore take for s>1s>1

Δt=0.02max(1,t)s13+s.\Delta t=0.02\max{(1,t)^{\frac{s-1}{3+s}}}. (S102)

For s<1s<1, we set Δt=0.02\Delta t=0.02.

One possible choice for D(h)D(h) is

D(h)=(ν1/(s1)+|h|)s1D(h)=\left(\nu^{1/(s-1)}+|h|\right)^{s-1} (S103)

with s>0s>0. This choice preserves the parity of D(h)D(h) and regularizes its behavior at the origin with D(0)=νD(0)=\nu. While D(h)D(h) is non-analytic at h=0h=0, this poses no numerical issues. In particular, we verified that it satisfies the scaling relations from the RG.

In order to reach a stationary state, we must consider a situation where the center of mass of the interface remains confined. This is not the case under periodic boundary conditions, as the center of mass undergoes diffusion. Instead, we consider the case where one extremity of the interface is fixed (i.e., h0=0h_{0}=0) while the other extremity, hLh_{L}, is free (i.e., D(hL)=0D(h_{L})=0). In this setup, the center of mass of the interface will scale as Lα\sim L^{\alpha} at large times.

V.2 Numerical evidence for the correspondence between stationary interface and the random walk model

In the following, we study the correspondence between a stationary interface, with the right boundary fixed at h0h_{0} and the left boundary free, and the random walk model defined by:

h~n+1=h~n+1D(h~n)ξn.\tilde{h}_{n+1}=\tilde{h}_{n}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(\tilde{h}_{n})}}\xi_{n}. (S104)

As mentioned in the main text, we expect this correspondence to hold when the interface varies slowly, i.e.

|hn+1hn|D(hn)|D(hn)|.|h_{n+1}-h_{n}|\ll\frac{D(h_{n})}{|D^{\prime}(h_{n})|}. (S105)

When this condition is met, |hn+1hn|1/D(hn)|h_{n+1}-h_{n}|\sim 1/\sqrt{D(h_{n})} and, considering the chosen form (S103) of D(h)D(h), this leads to the condition:

|D(hn)3/2D(hn)|(ν1/(s1)+|hn|)(s+1)/21.\left|\frac{D(h_{n})^{3/2}}{D^{\prime}(h_{n})}\right|\sim\left(\nu^{1/(s-1)}+|h_{n}|\right)^{(s+1)/2}\gg 1. (S106)

This condition is always satisfied for sufficiently large values of hnh_{n}. However, it can also hold for small hnh_{n} if ν\nu is large enough for s>1s>1, or small enough for s<1s<1.

In Fig. 9 (Left), we test the validity of the condition (S105). For small increments, the distribution of hn+1h_{n+1} conditioned to hnh_{n} becomes Gaussian of mean hnh_{n} and variance 1/D(hn)1/D(h_{n}). For large increments, deviations from the Gaussian behavior are observed. However, these deviations disappear when |hn|1|h_{n}|\gg 1, in which case the condition (S105) is satisfied. Numerically, the distribution of hn+1h_{n+1} is obtained by considering a small window around hnh_{n}. In practice, we take [0.07,0.07]\left[-0.07,0.07\right] for hn=0h_{n}=0; [0.45,0.55]\left[0.45,0.55\right] for hn=0.5h_{n}=0.5; [1.9,0.2.1]\left[1.9,0.2.1\right] for hn=2h_{n}=2; [3.8,4.2]\left[3.8,4.2\right] for hn=4h_{n}=4.

In Fig. 9 (Right), we show the distribution of hnh_{n} (with nLn\sim L) for an interface with the left boundary fixed at h0=300h_{0}=300 for s=0.5s=0.5. We choose h01h_{0}\gg 1 and LL sufficiently small such that hL1h_{L}\gg 1. Under these conditions, we expect the SPME interfaces to be well-described by the random walk model. The prediction from the continuous RW (S76)) is for the process |h||h|, but which is equivalent to the process hh here as hnh_{n} remains positive. The random walk model provides a good approximation, although some discrepancies appear for smaller values of hn150h_{n}\sim 150.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 9: Left: Distribution of the height hn+1h_{n+1} conditioned to a given hnh_{n} for stationary interfaces of the SPME for D(h)=0.5/1+|h|D(h)=0.5/\sqrt{1+|h|} (s=0.5s=0.5) (Histogram). The prediction for the random walk defined in Eq.(6) is a Gaussian of mean hnh_{n} and variance 1/D(hn)1/D(h_{n}) (Continuous lines) Right: PDF of hnh_{n} averaged over n[Lp,L]n\in[L-p,L] with L=100L=100 and p=10p=10, with boundary condition h0=300h_{0}=300 and D(h)=0.5/1+|h|D(h)=0.5/\sqrt{1+|h|} (s=0.5s=0.5) for (i) the stationary SPME (blue), (ii) the discrete RW model (orange), (iii) the analytical prediction (black) from the continuum diffusion model (using the two point transition probability in (S76)).
Refer to caption
Figure 10: PDF of hnh_{n} for the SPME averaged over n[Lp,L]n\in[L-p,L] with L=100L=100 and p=50p=50, with boundary condition h0=0h_{0}=0 and D(h)=1+sin(2h)/10D(h)=1+\sin{(2h)}/10. Compared to the random walk (black discontinuous line), obtained numerically.

The SPME/RW mapping is expected to be satisfied for any function that varies slowly, i.e., satisfies the condition (S105). As an example, in Fig. 10, we show the distribution of hnh_{n} for an interface starting from h0=0h_{0}=0 and with D(h)=1+sin(2h)/10D(h)=1+\sin{(2h)}/10, and observe a good agreement with the random walk obtained numerically. We use the discretization of the Laplacian xxV(h)V(hn+1)+V(hn1)2V(hn)\partial_{xx}V(h)\to V(h_{n+1})+V(h_{n-1})-2V(h_{n}) with V(h)=hcos(2h)/20V(h)=h-\cos{(2h)}/20.

We have shown that when the condition (S105) is satisfied, the mapping between the RW and the stationary SPME is excellent. Now we study cases where the condition (S105) only in the asymptotic limit and deviations are expected when the interface is close to the origin. In particular, this is the case flr the rescaled height hL/Lαh_{L}/L^{\alpha} for an interface starting at the origin h0=0h_{0}=0. In Fig. 11, we show that the rescaled height differ from the prediction of the RW, both for s<1s<1 and s>1s>1. The behavior is qualitatively correct, but even at L=400L=400 and L=1000L=1000, we are still far from the asymptotic prediction, presumably because hLαh\sim L^{\alpha} is not large enough (in particular for s=3s=3, since α=0.25\alpha=0.25).

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 11: PDF of hL/Lαh_{L}/L^{\alpha}, with boundary condition h0=0h_{0}=0 and several LL. The predicted (RW) asymptotic behavior is plotted in black dotted line. (Left) D(h)=0.5/1+|h|D(h)=0.5/\sqrt{1+|h|} (s=0.5s=0.5) (Right) D(h)=1+h2D(h)=1+h^{2} (s=3s=3). The PDF is averaged over n[Lp,L]n\in[L-p,L] with p=10p=10.

In Fig. 12, we also study the distribution of the height differences Δ=hn+hn\Delta=h_{n+\ell}-h_{n} for s>1s>1 for which the multifractal behavior of αloc(q)\alpha_{\rm loc}(q) is expected. We correctly recover the behavior of the typical height difference ΔtypLα121/2\Delta_{\rm typ}\sim L^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}\ell^{1/2} and its cutoff Δcα\Delta_{c}\sim\ell^{\alpha}. The power law decay, predicted in (S83), is underestimated as we find 1/Δ3\sim 1/\Delta^{3} instead of 1/Δ41/\Delta^{4}. Larger interfaces are needed to reach the asymptotic limit.

Refer to caption
Figure 12: Main panel: Distribution of P(Δ¯)P(\bar{\Delta}), Δ¯=Δ/(Lα1212)\bar{\Delta}=\Delta/(L^{\alpha-\frac{1}{2}}\ell^{\frac{1}{2}}) for s=3s=3, α=1/4\alpha=1/4 (blue line: L=250L=250, red line: L=1000L=1000) and for three different values of \ell. We have taken n[L100,L]n\in[L-100,L]. The collapse at small Δ¯\bar{\Delta} shows the scaling Δtyp()Lα1/2\Delta_{\text{typ}}(\ell)\sim\sqrt{\ell}L^{\alpha-1/2}. The plot also shows a power law decay with exponent 33 for L=1000L=1000. Inset: Determination of Δmax()Δ5/Δ4\Delta_{\text{max}}(\ell)\sim\langle\Delta^{5}\rangle/\langle\Delta^{4}\rangle.

V.3 Structure Factor

The structure factor Sq(t)S_{q}(t) is a crucial measure that probes the spatial correlations of interface heights. It is defined as:

Sk(t)=1L|n=1Lhn(t)eiqn|2=h^k(t)h^k(t),S_{k}(t)=\left\langle\frac{1}{L}\left|\sum_{n=1}^{L}h_{n}(t)e^{-iqn}\right|^{2}\right\rangle=\langle\hat{h}_{k}(t)\hat{h}_{-k}(t)\rangle, (S107)

where h^k\hat{h}_{k} denotes the Fourier transform of the height profile hnh_{n}. The standard scaling behavior in the stationary regime is Skk(d+2α)S_{k}\sim k^{-(d+2\alpha)} where dd is the spatial dimension and α\alpha the roughness exponent. However, from the mapping to the random walk, we expect the SPME to display anomalous scaling properties. This leads to the prediction, for 1/L<k11/L<k\ll 1,

SkL2(ααloc(2))/k1+2αloc(2),S_{k}\sim L^{2(\alpha-\alpha_{\rm loc}(2))}/k^{1+2\alpha_{\rm loc}(2)}, (S108)

with αloc(2)=1/2\alpha_{\rm loc}(2)=1/2 for all ss since qc=2+2s1>2q_{c}=2+\frac{2}{s-1}>2. We thus expect:

SkL2α1/k2,S_{k}\sim L^{2\alpha-1}/k^{2}, (S109)

for 1/L<k11/L<k\ll 1. This can be seen in Fig. 13. For s=0.5s=0.5 (Left), this scaling is satisfied. For s=3s=3, the collapse for several LL improves as LL increases and the slope is 1/k1.9\sim 1/k^{1.9}, slightly smaller than the predicted 1/k2\sim 1/k^{2}. This is likely due to the finite size effects already observed in the distribution of the jumps in Fig. 12.

Refer to caption
Refer to caption
Figure 13: Structure factor SkS_{k} for (Left) D(h)=1/(1+|h|)D(h)=1/(1+|h|) corresponding to s=0.5s=0.5, α=2/3\alpha=2/3 and (Right) D(h)=1/4+h2D(h)=1/4+h^{2}, corresponding to s=3s=3, α=1/4\alpha=1/4. The continuous line corresponds to the collapse Sk/L2(α1/2)S_{k}/L^{2(\alpha-1/2)} while the dotted line to SkS_{k}.

VI Fokker-Planck equation for the discrete PME

Consider the discrete SPME equation, for n=1,,Ln=1,\dots,L

thn=D(hn)(hn+1hn)+D(hn1)(hn1hn)+ηn(t).\partial_{t}h_{n}=D(h_{n})\left(h_{n+1}-h_{n}\right)+D(h_{n-1})\left(h_{n-1}-h_{n}\right)+\eta_{n}(t). (S110)

and recall that we choose ηn(t)\eta_{n}(t) to i.i.d white noises with ηn(t)ηn(t)=2δnnδ(tt)\langle\eta_{n}(t)\eta_{n}(t^{\prime})=2\delta_{nn^{\prime}}\delta(t-t^{\prime}). We focus here on the case where h0h_{0} is fixed and hLh_{L} free, which amounts to set D(hL)=0D(h_{L})=0.

Denoting h=(h1,,hL)\vec{h}=(h_{1},\dots,h_{L}) the probability density function 𝒫(h,t){\cal P}(\vec{h},t) evolves according to the Fokker-Planck equation

t𝒫(h,t)=n=1LhnJn(h)\displaystyle\partial_{t}\mathcal{P}(\vec{h},t)=-\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{\partial}{\partial h_{n}}J_{n}(\vec{h}) (S111)
Jn(h,t)=(D(hn)(hn+1hn)+D(hn1)(hn1hn))𝒫(h,t)hn𝒫(h,t)\displaystyle J_{n}(\vec{h},t)=\left(D(h_{n})\left(h_{n+1}-h_{n}\right)+D(h_{n-1})\left(h_{n-1}-h_{n}\right)\right)\mathcal{P}(\vec{h},t)-\frac{\partial}{\partial h_{n}}\mathcal{P}(\vec{h},t) (S112)

where Jn(h,t)J_{n}(\vec{h},t) is the current. The current vanishes exactly when detailed balance is obeyed, which is not the case here since we are dealing with a non equilibrium system.

With the above boundary conditions, our trial ansatz for the stationary measure corresponds to the probability distribution of h\vec{h} for the RW model introduced in the text (S56). We recall that it is defined by the recursion

hn+1=hn+1D(hn)ξnh_{n+1}=h_{n}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{D(h_{n})}}\xi_{n} (S113)

This leads to the probability distribution of h\vec{h}. It reads PRW(h)=𝒩eF(h)P_{RW}(\vec{h})=\mathcal{N}e^{-F(\vec{h})} with

F(h)=n=0L1[D(hn)(hn+1hn)2212logD(hn)].F(\vec{h})=\sum_{n=0}^{L-1}[D(h_{n})\frac{(h_{n+1}-h_{n})^{2}}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\log{D(h_{n})}]. (S114)

We will thus take this trial probability as our initial condition, and see how it evolves. Hence we consider the evolution of 𝒫(h,t)\mathcal{P}(\vec{h},t) starting from

𝒫(h,t=0)=PRW(h)\mathcal{P}(\vec{h},t=0)=P_{RW}(\vec{h}) (S115)

The current at time t=0t=0 is then, for 1nL11\leq n\leq L-1

Jn(h,t=0)=Gn(h)PRW(h),Gn(h)=D(hn)(hn+1hn)2212D(hn)D(hn)J_{n}(\vec{h},t=0)=G_{n}(\vec{h})P_{RW}(\vec{h})\quad,\quad G_{n}(\vec{h})=D^{\prime}(h_{n})\frac{(h_{n+1}-h_{n})^{2}}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{n})}{D(h_{n})} (S116)

with JL(h,t=0)=0J_{L}(\vec{h},t=0)=0 and GL(h)=0G_{L}(\vec{h})=0. One can check that n=1LhnJn(h,t=0)\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{\partial}{\partial h_{n}}J_{n}(\vec{h},t=0) does not vanish exactly for finite LL, hence the trial ansatz is not an exact stationary measure for finite LL. However we claim that it becomes an increasingly good approximation of the true stationary measure of the SPME in the large LL limit upon some appropriate rescaling. This is strongly supported by our numerical simulations and we now provide a rationale for this claim.

It turns out that one can compute exactly the time derivative (at time t=0t=0) of certain observables with the initial condition given by the trial stationary measure.

Consider an observable 𝒪(h){\cal O}(\vec{h}) and define 𝒟h=n=1Ldhn{\cal D}\vec{h}=\prod_{n=1}^{L}dh_{n}. One has, for general initial condition

ddt𝒟h𝒪(h)P(h,t)=𝒟h𝒪(h)ddtP(h,t)=𝒟hn=1L𝒪(h)hnJn(h,t)=𝒟hn=1L𝒪(h)hnJn(h,t)\frac{d}{dt}\int{\cal D}\vec{h}{\cal O}(\vec{h})P(\vec{h},t)=\int{\cal D}\vec{h}{\cal O}(\vec{h})\frac{d}{dt}P(\vec{h},t)=-\int{\cal D}\vec{h}\sum_{n=1}^{L}{\cal O}(\vec{h})\frac{\partial}{\partial h_{n}}J_{n}(\vec{h},t)=\int{\cal D}\vec{h}\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{\partial{\cal O}(\vec{h})}{\partial h_{n}}J_{n}(\vec{h},t) (S117)

Applying this at t=0t=0 with the initial condition (S115)

ddt𝒟h𝒪(h)P(h,t)|t=0=𝒟hn=1L𝒪(h)hnGn(h)PRW(h)=n=1L𝒪(h)hnGn(h)RW\frac{d}{dt}\int{\cal D}\vec{h}{\cal O}(\vec{h})P(\vec{h},t)|_{t=0}=\int{\cal D}\vec{h}\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{\partial{\cal O}(\vec{h})}{\partial h_{n}}G_{n}(\vec{h})P_{\rm RW}(\vec{h})=\langle\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{\partial{\cal O}(\vec{h})}{\partial h_{n}}G_{n}(\vec{h})\rangle_{\rm RW} (S118)

where here we denote by RW\langle\dots\rangle_{\rm RW} denote an expectation value with respect to our trial measure (S114). Hence (S118) gives a formula for the time derivative at time zero of observables when the system starts at time zero with the trial stationary measure.

Let us consider the observable 𝒪(h)=(hm+1hm)2D(hm){\cal O}(\vec{h})=(h_{m+1}-h_{m})^{2}D(h_{m}) where 1mL11\leq m\leq L-1 is given. For the RW model, and hence at t=0t=0 here, from (S113) we see that it corresponds to the increment 𝒪(h)=ξm2{\cal O}(\vec{h})=\xi_{m}^{2}, which is of order 11 and independent of hjh_{j} for jmj\leq m. One can thus, at t=0t=0, rewrite:

2Gn(h)=D(hn)D(hn)(D(hn)(hn+1hn)21)=D(hn)D(hn)(ξn21),2G_{n}(\vec{h})=\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{n})}{D(h_{n})}(D(h_{n})(h_{n+1}-h_{n})^{2}-1)=\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{n})}{D(h_{n})}(\xi_{n}^{2}-1), (S119)

One also has:

hn𝒪(h)=δnm((hmhm+1)2D(hm)+(hm+1hm)2D(hm))+δn,m+1(hm+1hm)2D(hm)\displaystyle\partial_{h_{n}}{\cal O}(\vec{h})=\delta_{nm}\left((h_{m}-h_{m+1})2D(h_{m})+(h_{m+1}-h_{m})^{2}D^{\prime}(h_{m})\right)+\delta_{n,m+1}(h_{m+1}-h_{m})2D(h_{m}) (S120)

One obtains the sum in (S118) as a sum of two terms

n=1L𝒪(h)hnGn(h)RW=A+B\langle\sum_{n=1}^{L}\frac{\partial{\cal O}(\vec{h})}{\partial h_{n}}G_{n}(\vec{h})\rangle_{\rm RW}=A+B (S121)

The first one is

A=Gm(h)((hmhm+1)2D(hm)+(hm+1hm)2D(hm))RW\displaystyle A=\langle G_{m}(\vec{h})\left((h_{m}-h_{m+1})2D(h_{m})+(h_{m+1}-h_{m})^{2}D^{\prime}(h_{m})\right)\rangle_{\rm RW} (S122)
=12D(hm)D(hm)(ξm21)(ξmD(hm)2D(hm)+ξm2D(hm)D(hm))RW=D(hm)2D(hm)2RW\displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\langle\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{m})}{D(h_{m})}(\xi_{m}^{2}-1)(-\frac{\xi_{m}}{\sqrt{D(h_{m})}}2D(h_{m})+\xi_{m}^{2}\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{m})}{D(h_{m})})\rangle_{\rm RW}=\langle\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{m})^{2}}{D(h_{m})^{2}}\rangle_{\rm RW} (S123)

where we have used (S113), (S119), since we are computing expectation values at time t=0t=0 with respect to the random walk. We also used that ξm\xi_{m} is independent of hmh_{m} and is a standard centered Gaussian random variable, hence ξm2(ξm21)RW=2\langle\xi_{m}^{2}(\xi_{m}^{2}-1)\rangle_{\rm RW}=2. The second one is

B=Gm+1(h)(hm+1hm)2D(hm)RW=12D(hm+1)D(hm+1)(ξm+121)ξmD(hm)2D(hm)RW=0\displaystyle B=\langle G_{m+1}(\vec{h})(h_{m+1}-h_{m})2D(h_{m})\rangle_{\rm RW}=\frac{1}{2}\langle\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{m+1})}{D(h_{m+1})}(\xi_{m+1}^{2}-1)\frac{\xi_{m}}{\sqrt{D(h_{m})}}2D(h_{m})\rangle_{\rm RW}=0 (S124)

since ξm+1\xi_{m+1} is independent of the other variables and (ξm+121)RW=0\langle(\xi_{m+1}^{2}-1)\rangle_{\rm RW}=0.

In total we have shown that, starting from initial condition P(h,t=0)=PRW(h)P(\vec{h},t=0)=P_{RW}(\vec{h}) one has

ddt𝒪(h)|t=0=D(hm)2D(hm)2RW\frac{d}{dt}\langle{\cal O}(\vec{h})\rangle|_{t=0}=\langle\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{m})^{2}}{D(h_{m})^{2}}\rangle_{\rm RW} (S125)

This is not zero, as it would be if the trial distribution was the exact stationary measure.

However we now show that the r.h.s of (S125) vanishes at large LL as a power of LL. To determine this power let us choose mm of order LL and consider the the probability distribution PL(h)P_{L}(h) of h=hmh=h_{m}. We need to evaluate

D(hm)2D(hm)2RW=𝑑hPL(h)D(h)2D(h)2\langle\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{m})^{2}}{D(h_{m})^{2}}\rangle_{\rm RW}=\int dhP_{L}(h)\frac{D^{\prime}(h)^{2}}{D(h)^{2}} (S126)

To take into account that there is a cutoff region at h=O(1)h=O(1), with a finite D(0)=O(1)D(0)=O(1) we can use as an example the form D(h)/D(h)(s1)/(1+|h|)D^{\prime}(h)/D(h)\approx(s-1)/(1+|h|). As we discussed in Section III for hLαh\sim L^{\alpha} the distribution PL(h)P_{L}(h) takes the scaling form PL(h)LαP~(h/Lα)P_{L}(h)\simeq L^{-\alpha}\tilde{P}(h/L^{\alpha}), which furthermore displays a power law behavior PL(h)Lα1|h|s1P_{L}(h)\sim L^{\alpha-1}|h|^{s-1} for 1hLα1\ll h\ll L^{\alpha}. Hence the above integral contains two separate regions, and there are two cases.

(i) for s>2s>2 the integral is dominated by the region hLαh\sim L^{\alpha} and the integral behaves as

ddt𝒪(h)|t=0(s1)2dh(1+|h|)2LαP~(h/Lα)L2α.\frac{d}{dt}\langle{\cal O}(\vec{h})\rangle|_{t=0}\sim(s-1)^{2}\int\frac{dh}{(1+|h|)^{2}}L^{-\alpha}\tilde{P}(h/L^{\alpha})\sim L^{-2\alpha}. (S127)

(ii) for s<2s<2 the integral is dominated by the region hLαh\ll L^{\alpha} and the integral behaves as

ddt𝒪(h)|t=0(s1)2dh(1+|h|)2P(h)𝑑hP(h)L(1α).\frac{d}{dt}\langle{\cal O}(\vec{h})\rangle|_{t=0}\sim(s-1)^{2}\int\frac{dh}{(1+|h|)^{2}}P(h)\sim\int dhP(h)\sim L^{-(1-\alpha)}. (S128)

At the transition between the two cases i.e. for s=2s=2 the decay is L2/3L^{-2/3}.

In summary we have shown that, starting from the random walk probability measure PRW(h)P_{\rm RW}(\vec{h}) there is an observable 𝒪(h)=(hm+1hm)2D(hm){\cal O}(\vec{h})=(h_{m+1}-h_{m})^{2}D(h_{m}) which is of order O(1)O(1) at t=0t=0 and whose time derivative vanishes at time zero in the limit of a large system L+L\to+\infty. This is a strong indication that the random walk measure describes well the stationary state of the SPME. Of course it is not a proof, unless we could show that a similar result holds for a much larger class of observable.

Remark. For some observables the time derivative at time zero vanishes exactly. Indeed, let us return to (S118) for a general observable. It reads

ddt𝒪[h]|t=0=12n=1L(hn𝒪[h])D(hn)D(hn)(ξn21)\displaystyle\frac{d}{dt}\langle{\cal O}[\vec{h}]\rangle|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}\langle\sum_{n=1}^{L}(\partial_{h_{n}}{\cal O}[\vec{h}])\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{n})}{D(h_{n})}(\xi_{n}^{2}-1)\rangle (S129)

An immediate consequence is that the time derivative (at time zero) of any function of the height at one point, 𝒪[h]=f(hj){\cal O}[\vec{h}]=f(h_{j}) for a given jj, vanishes since

ddtf(hj)|t=0=12f(hj)D(hj)D(hj)(ξj21)=0\frac{d}{dt}\langle f(h_{j})\rangle|_{t=0}=\frac{1}{2}\langle f^{\prime}(h_{j})\frac{D^{\prime}(h_{j})}{D(h_{j})}(\xi_{j}^{2}-1)\rangle=0 (S130)

Hence the one point marginal distribution of hjh_{j} is unchanged in an infinitesimal time interval starting from PRW(h)P_{RW}(\vec{h}).