Scaling of phase count in multicomponent liquids
Yicheng Qiang
Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization, Am Faßberg 17, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Chengjie Luo
Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization, Am Faßberg 17, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
David Zwicker
[email protected]
Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization, Am Faßberg 17, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
Abstract
Mixtures with many components can segregate into coexisting phases, e.g., in biological cells and synthetic materials such as metallic glass. The interactions between components dictate what phases form in equilibrium, but quantifying this relationship has proven difficult. We derive scaling relations for the number of coexisting phases in multicomponent liquids with random interactions and compositions, which we verify numerically. Our results indicate that interactions only need to increase logarithmically with the number of components for the liquid to segregate into many phases. In contrast, a stability analysis of the homogeneous state predicts a power-law scaling. This discrepancy implies an enormous parameter regime where the number of coexisting phases exceeds the number of unstable modes, generalizing the nucleation and growth regime of binary mixtures to many components.
Phase separation of multicomponent mixture plays crucial roles in living systems and synthetic materials.
In living system, like biological cells, phase separation enables biomolecular condensates, which involves thousands of different components [1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ] .
In synthetic materials, controlling phase separation is essential for engineering high-performance multicomponent materials, such as high-entropy alloys and metallic glasses [5 , 6 ] .
In all these cases, interactions between constituents control what phases form and which components they enrich.
Simple multicomponent mixtures are often studied using equilibrium thermodynamics of the seminal Flory-Huggins model [7 , 8 ] .
Whereas phase separation of binary mixtures is textbook material [9 ] , higher component counts create fundamental challenges.
In particular, many different phases can coexist [10 ] , depending on the overall composition and the pairwise interactions between components [11 , 12 , 13 ] .
The details are captured by the intricate geometry of the high-dimensional phase diagrams [14 ] .
The geometry was already explored by direct simulation [15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ] and by convexifying the free energy landscape [19 ] , which are both limited to small component counts.
Alternatively, analyzing the stability of the homogeneous state [20 , 21 , 22 , 16 , 23 , 24 ] readily provides results for many components, but it is unlikely that this approach predicts actual coexisting phases.
In this letter, we derive scaling relations that faithfully predict the number of coexisting phases in mixtures with many components and random interactions.
We test these relations using an improved numerical method based on the free energy minimization of an incompressible mixture, characterized by mean volume fractions ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 {\bar{\phi}}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of its N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT components for i = 1 , 2 , … , N c 𝑖 1 2 … subscript 𝑁 c
i=1,2,\ldots,{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_i = 1 , 2 , … , italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with ∑ i ϕ ¯ i = 1 subscript 𝑖 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 \sum_{i}{\bar{\phi}}_{i}=1 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 .
In the simplest case of homogeneous state, the equilibrium physics is governed by the Flory-Huggins free energy density
f ( { ϕ ¯ i } ) = 1 2 ∑ i , j = 1 N c χ i j ϕ ¯ i ϕ ¯ j + ∑ i = 1 N c ϕ ¯ i ln ϕ ¯ i , 𝑓 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑖 𝑗
1 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑗 superscript subscript 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 \displaystyle f(\{{\bar{\phi}}_{i}\})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j=1}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}%
\chi_{ij}{\bar{\phi}}_{i}{\bar{\phi}}_{j}+\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}{\bar{%
\phi}}_{i}\ln{\bar{\phi}}_{i}\;, italic_f ( { over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ln over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(1)
which combines pairwise interactions, quantified by the symmetric Flory matrix χ i j = χ j i subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 subscript 𝜒 𝑗 𝑖 \chi_{ij}=\chi_{ji} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with χ i i = 0 subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑖 0 \chi_{ii}=0 italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 , and translational entropy captured by the last term [7 , 8 ] .
For some choices of χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , the system can lower its free energy by splitting into multiple phases.
We discuss this phase separation in the simple case of a thermodynamically large system where phases are homogeneous and their interfaces are negligible, so that equilibrium states minimize the average free energy density
f ¯ = ∑ p = 1 N p J p f ( { ϕ i ( p ) } ) , ¯ 𝑓 superscript subscript 𝑝 1 subscript 𝑁 p subscript 𝐽 𝑝 𝑓 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑝 \displaystyle\bar{f}=\sum_{p=1}^{{N_{\mathrm{p}}}}J_{p}f(\{\phi_{i}^{(p)}\})\;, over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f ( { italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } ) ,
(2)
where phase p 𝑝 p italic_p is described by its composition ϕ i ( p ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑝 \phi_{i}^{(p)} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and the relative volume J p subscript 𝐽 𝑝 J_{p} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT obeying ∑ p J p = 1 subscript 𝑝 subscript 𝐽 𝑝 1 \sum_{p}J_{p}=1 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 .
Material conservation additionally implies ϕ ¯ i = ∑ p = 1 N p J p ϕ i ( p ) subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑝 1 subscript 𝑁 p subscript 𝐽 𝑝 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑝 {\bar{\phi}}_{i}=\sum_{p=1}^{{N_{\mathrm{p}}}}J_{p}\phi_{i}^{(p)} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Coexisting phases can in principle be obtained by minimizing f ¯ ¯ 𝑓 \bar{f} over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG for given interaction matrices χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and average volume fractions ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 {\bar{\phi}}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
However, these parameters are often not directly accessible in real systems.
To circumvent this challenge, we instead treat χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 {\bar{\phi}}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT as random variables to make robust predictions for how they impact the average number of the coexisting phases, N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
In particular, we draw the entries of the interaction matrix χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for i < j 𝑖 𝑗 i<j italic_i < italic_j independently from the normal distribution 𝒩 ( χ ¯ , σ χ ) 𝒩 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \mathcal{N}({\bar{\chi}},{\sigma_{\chi}}) caligraphic_N ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , parametrized by the mean interaction χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and the standard deviation σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
To build intuition, we start with the special case of identical interactions (χ i ≠ j = χ ¯ subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 ¯ 𝜒 \chi_{i\neq j}={\bar{\chi}} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , σ χ = 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 0 {\sigma_{\chi}}=0 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ) and symmetric compositions (ϕ ¯ i = 1 / N c subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\phi}}_{i}=1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).
We first check whether the homogeneous state is unstable, which marks the parameter region where phase separation is inevitable.
Mathematically, this corresponds to the region where the Hessian matrix H i j = ∂ 2 f / ∂ ϕ i ∂ ϕ j subscript 𝐻 𝑖 𝑗 superscript 2 𝑓 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 H_{ij}=\partial^{2}f/\partial\phi_{i}\partial\phi_{j} italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f / ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is no longer positive definite, i.e., where at least one eigenvalue is negative.
For ϕ ¯ i = 1 / N c subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\phi}}_{i}=1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , this is the case when [25 ]
χ ¯ > N c , ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle{\bar{\chi}}>{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\;, over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG > italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(3)
suggesting interactions need to scale with the components count N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to destabilize the homogeneous state.
Equilibrium states can exhibit phase separation even when the homogeneous state is (locally) stable [26 , 27 ] .
To estimate the minimum interaction strength necessary for phase separation, we next consider N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT coexisting phases, each enriching a single component while diluting all other components by the same volume fraction ϕ ∗ ( N c ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , with ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ≈ e − χ ¯ superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 \phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}\approx e^{-{\bar{\chi}}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≈ italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for χ ¯ ≫ ln N c much-greater-than ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}\gg\ln{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ≫ roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [25 ] .
The free energy associated with this phase separated state is necessarily lower than the homogeneous state when [25 ]
χ ¯ > 2 N c N c − 1 ln N c , ¯ 𝜒 2 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle{\bar{\chi}}>\frac{2{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}\ln{N_{%
\mathrm{c}}}\;, over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG > divide start_ARG 2 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_ARG roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(4)
which provides a lower bound for the interaction strength above which phase separated states are favored.
The relation indicates that interactions required for phase separation need to scale only logarithmically with the component count N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
A comparison with Eq. (3 ) suggests that the stability of the homogeneous state is a bad proxy for the phase separation behavior of multicomponent liquids.
Since phase separation of multi-component liquids not only depends on interactions but also composition [24 ] , we next study the average behavior for all permissible volume fractions (ϕ ¯ i ≥ 0 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 0 {\bar{\phi}}_{i}\geq 0 over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≥ 0 , ∑ i ϕ ¯ i = 1 subscript 𝑖 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 \sum_{i}\bar{\phi}_{i}=1 ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 ), maintaining identical interactions (χ i ≠ j = χ ¯ subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 ¯ 𝜒 \chi_{i\neq j}={\bar{\chi}} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , σ χ = 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 0 {\sigma_{\chi}}=0 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ).
In this case, we expect the number of coexisting phases, N p subscript 𝑁 p {N_{\mathrm{p}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , to vary between N p = 1 subscript 𝑁 p 1 {N_{\mathrm{p}}}=1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 (homogeneous system) and N p = N c subscript 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{p}}}={N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (maximum allowed by Gibb’s phase rule [28 ] ).
Similarly, the number of unstable modes of the homogeneous state, N u subscript 𝑁 u {N_{\mathrm{u}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , will vary between N u = 0 subscript 𝑁 u 0 {N_{\mathrm{u}}}=0 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and N u = N c − 1 subscript 𝑁 u subscript 𝑁 c 1 {N_{\mathrm{u}}}={N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , since only N c − 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 variables are independent due to incompressibility.
These two extreme scenarios suggest the relation N p ∼ N u + 1 similar-to subscript 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 u 1 {N_{\mathrm{p}}}\sim{N_{\mathrm{u}}}+1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 .
Figure 1:
Average number of phases exceeds number of unstable modes for identical interactions.
(a, b) Normalized average number of unstable modes, ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , as a function of the mean interaction strength χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 \bar{\chi} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG in (a) and the scaled interaction χ ¯ / N c ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \bar{\chi}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in (b) for various component counts N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
The shaded area in (a) indicates the bounds given by Eq. (6 ), and the black line in (b) denotes the asymptotic expression (7 ).
(c, d) Normalized average number of coexisting phases, N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , (green-blue) and ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (orange-purple) as a function of χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 \bar{\chi} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG in (c) and χ ¯ − ln ( N c − 1 ) ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 \bar{\chi}-\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) in (d).
The black line in (d) marks the asymptotic expression (9 ).
(a–d) Each dot results from an average over 500 500 500 500 –20 000 20000 20\,000 20 000 uniformly sampled compositions.
Figure 2:
Illustration of phase count bounds.
The center plot shows the phase diagram as a function of the volume fractions ϕ i subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 \phi_{i} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of N c = 3 subscript 𝑁 c 3 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}=3 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 3 components for χ i ≠ j = 2.8 subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 2.8 \chi_{i\neq j}=2.8 italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2.8 .
The colored regions indicate the number of coexisting phases, N p = 1 , 2 , 3 subscript 𝑁 p 1 2 3
{N_{\mathrm{p}}}=1,2,3 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 , 2 , 3 .
The adjacent plots approximate the phase diagram using boundaries parallel to the axes, obtained by expanding the N p = 1 subscript 𝑁 p 1 {N_{\mathrm{p}}}=1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 region (left) or the central region with N p = N c subscript 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{p}}}={N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (right).
They respectively provide lower and upper bounds to the average phase count N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , which can be obtained from the fraction covered by an area associated with each component (thick red lines).
To determine the average number of unstable modes, N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we chose random compositions using Beta distributions [11 ] and diagonalized the Hessian matrix 𝑯 𝑯 \boldsymbol{H} bold_italic_H numerically.
Fig. 1 a shows that N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT increases with the mean interaction strength χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 \bar{\chi} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , as expected.
An analytical estimate for N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT follows from Cauchy’s interlacing theorem:
The number N u subscript 𝑁 u {N_{\mathrm{u}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of negative eigenvalues of 𝑯 𝑯 \boldsymbol{H} bold_italic_H equals the number of sign changes in the sequence
det 𝑯 0 , det 𝑯 1 , … , det 𝑯 N c − 1 , subscript 𝑯 0 subscript 𝑯 1 … subscript 𝑯 subscript 𝑁 c 1
\displaystyle\det{\boldsymbol{H}_{0}},\det{\boldsymbol{H}_{1}},\ldots,\det{%
\boldsymbol{H}_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}}\;, roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(5)
where det 𝑯 n = ( ∏ i = 1 n q i ) ( ∑ i = 1 n q i − 1 ) subscript 𝑯 𝑛 superscript subscript product 𝑖 1 𝑛 subscript 𝑞 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑖 1 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝑞 𝑖 1 \det{\boldsymbol{H}_{n}}=(\prod_{i=1}^{n}q_{i})(\sum_{i=1}^{n}q_{i}^{-1}) roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is the determinant of the rank-n 𝑛 n italic_n leading minor of 𝑯 𝑯 \boldsymbol{H} bold_italic_H with q i = ϕ ¯ i − 1 − χ ¯ subscript 𝑞 𝑖 superscript subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 ¯ 𝜒 q_{i}={\bar{\phi}}_{i}^{-1}-{\bar{\chi}} italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and det 𝑯 0 = 1 subscript 𝑯 0 1 \det{\boldsymbol{H}_{0}}=1 roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 .
The number of sign changes in Eq. (5 ) is either N − subscript 𝑁 N_{-} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT or N − − 1 subscript 𝑁 1 N_{-}-1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , where N − subscript 𝑁 N_{-} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the number of negative q i subscript 𝑞 𝑖 q_{i} italic_q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , i.e., the number of ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 {\bar{\phi}}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT larger than χ ¯ − 1 superscript ¯ 𝜒 1 {\bar{\chi}}^{-1} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT [25 ] .
This implies that N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is bounded by E N c [ ϕ ¯ i > χ ¯ − 1 ] ≤ N ¯ u + 1 ≤ E N c [ ϕ ¯ i > χ ¯ − 1 ] + 1 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 superscript ¯ 𝜒 1 subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 superscript ¯ 𝜒 1 1 E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[{\bar{\phi}}_{i}>{\bar{\chi}}^{-1}]\leq{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{%
u}}}+1\leq E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[{\bar{\phi}}_{i}>{\bar{\chi}}^{-1}]+1 italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] ≤ over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ≤ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] + 1 , where E N c [ ϕ ¯ i > h ] = N c ( 1 − h ) N c − 1 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 ℎ subscript 𝑁 c superscript 1 ℎ subscript 𝑁 c 1 E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[{\bar{\phi}}_{i}>h]={N_{\mathrm{c}}}(1-h)^{{N_{\mathrm{c}%
}}-1} italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_h ] = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 - italic_h ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes the expected number of ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 {\bar{\phi}}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT larger than h ℎ h italic_h . The normalized average number of unstable modes, ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , is thus bounded by
( 1 − 1 χ ¯ ) N c − 1 ≤ N ¯ u + 1 N c ≤ ( 1 − 1 χ ¯ ) N c − 1 + 1 N c , superscript 1 1 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c superscript 1 1 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 1 subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle\left(1-\frac{1}{{\bar{\chi}}}\right)^{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}\leq%
\frac{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\leq\left(1-\frac{1}{{\bar{%
\chi}}}\right)^{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}+\frac{1}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\;, ( 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ ( 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ,
(6)
consistent with our numerics; see Fig. 1 a.
The two bounds in Eq. (6 ) converge for large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , implying
N ¯ u + 1 N c ⟶ N c ≫ 1 ( 1 − 1 χ ¯ ) N c − 1 ≈ χ ¯ ≫ 1 e − N c / χ ¯ . subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c much-greater-than subscript 𝑁 c 1 ⟶ superscript 1 1 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 much-greater-than ¯ 𝜒 1 superscript 𝑒 subscript 𝑁 c ¯ 𝜒 \displaystyle\frac{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\overset{{N_{%
\mathrm{c}}}\gg 1}{\longrightarrow}\left(1-\frac{1}{{\bar{\chi}}}\right)^{{N_{%
\mathrm{c}}}-1}\overset{{\bar{\chi}}\gg 1}{\approx}e^{-{N_{\mathrm{c}}}/{\bar{%
\chi}}}\;. divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_OVERACCENT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≫ 1 end_OVERACCENT start_ARG ⟶ end_ARG ( 1 - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_ARG ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_OVERACCENT over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ≫ 1 end_OVERACCENT start_ARG ≈ end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
(7)
This scaling indicates that the normalized number of unstable modes averaged over the phase diagram, N ¯ u / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , is controlled by the single scaled interaction parameter χ ¯ / N c ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . Fig. 1 b shows that this scaling indeed collapses the numerical data for large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , even for small χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 \bar{\chi} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG .
To test how well the average number N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of unstable modes predicts the average phase count, N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we next investigate equilibrium states.
In contrast to the unstable modes, it is difficult to obtain the coexisting states since they involve global information of the free energy landscape.
To alleviate this challenge, we designed an efficient algorithm to determine coexisting states at arbitrary interactions and mean compositions, which is similar to the Gibbs ensemble method [29 , 30 , 31 ] .
The method minimizes the mean free energy f ¯ ¯ 𝑓 \bar{f} over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG given by Eq. (2 ) by redistributing components and volume across an ensemble of compartments, while obeying volume and material conservation [25 ] . In a key improvement over our earlier implementation [11 , 10 ] , we now initialize compartments such that the average fractions ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 \bar{\phi}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can attain any value, which in principle allows us to determine the full ( N c − 1 ) subscript 𝑁 c 1 ({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) -dimensional phase diagram.
Sampling the numerically obtained phase count N p subscript 𝑁 p {N_{\mathrm{p}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over the entire phase diagram allows us to estimate the average number of the coexisting phases in equilibrium, N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
The numerical results shown in Fig. 1 c indicate that N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT increases much more quickly with the interaction strength χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 \bar{\chi} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG than the number of unstable modes N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Moreover, the scaled interaction strength χ ¯ / N c ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \bar{\chi}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , derived for N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT from Eq. (7 ), cannot collapse these data.
To derive an alternative scaling law, we focus on strong interactions, where Eq. (4 ) is satisfied, so we have the maximal number of phases (N p = N c subscript 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{p}}}={N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) for equal composition at the center of the phase diagram (ϕ ¯ i = 1 / N c subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c \bar{\phi}_{i}=1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).
The region where these N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT phases are stable forms a ( N c − 1 ) subscript 𝑁 c 1 ({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) -dimensional simplex (green region in Fig. 2 ), which covers a larger area for higher χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG . However, averaging N p subscript 𝑁 p {N_{\mathrm{p}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over the entire phase diagram is difficult since phase boundaries are generally curved.
Instead, we next derive lower and upper bounds of N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by replacing curved boundaries with flat hyperplanes that are parallel to the axes of the phase diagram [25 ] .
For the lower bound, we enlarge regions with few phases so their boundaries extend the flat boundaries of the central region, intersecting the axes at ϕ ∗ ( N c ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT (left plot in Fig. 2 ).
For the upper bound, we move the straight boundaries of the central region such that their extensions intersect the axes of the phase diagram at ϕ ∗ ( 2 ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ 2 \phi_{*}^{(2)} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , which marks the coexistence point between the 1 1 1 1 -phase and 2 2 2 2 -phase region (right plot in Fig. 2 ).
For both bounds, all phase boundaries are then parallel to the axes of the phase diagram, and the average phase count N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be calculated from the volume of the smallest simplex enclosing the central region and one corner of the phase diagram.
One of these simplexes is marked by the red line in Fig. 2 , and there are two congruent regions anchored at the remaining corners.
Since the phase count at each point in the phase diagram is given by the number of these simplexes covering that point, N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is simply N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT times the fraction covered by a single simplex.
For general component counts, the normalized average phase count N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is then bounded by [25 ]
( 1 − ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ) N c − 1 ≤ N ¯ p N c ≤ ( 1 − ϕ ∗ ( 2 ) ) N c − 1 , superscript 1 superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c superscript 1 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 2 subscript 𝑁 c 1 \displaystyle\left(1-\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}\right)^{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}%
\leq\frac{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\leq\left(1-\phi_{*}^{(2)}%
\right)^{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}\;, ( 1 - italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≤ divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ≤ ( 1 - italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(8)
For χ ¯ ≫ 1 much-greater-than ¯ 𝜒 1 {\bar{\chi}}\gg 1 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ≫ 1 , the fractions ϕ ∗ ( N c ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and ϕ ∗ ( 2 ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ 2 \phi_{*}^{(2)} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT converge to e − χ ¯ superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 e^{-{\bar{\chi}}} italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , implying [25 ]
N ¯ p N c ⟶ χ ¯ ≫ 1 ( 1 − e − χ ¯ ) N c − 1 ≈ exp [ ( N c − 1 ) e − χ ¯ ] . subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c much-greater-than ¯ 𝜒 1 ⟶ superscript 1 superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 \displaystyle\frac{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\overset{{\bar{%
\chi}}\gg 1}{\longrightarrow}\left(1-e^{-{\bar{\chi}}}\right)^{{N_{\mathrm{c}}%
}-1}\approx\exp\!\left[({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1)e^{-{\bar{\chi}}}\right]\;. divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_OVERACCENT over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ≫ 1 end_OVERACCENT start_ARG ⟶ end_ARG ( 1 - italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≈ roman_exp [ ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .
(9)
This approximation reveals that N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is asymptotically given by E N c [ ϕ ¯ i > e − χ ¯ ] subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[{\bar{\phi}}_{i}>e^{-{\bar{\chi}}}] italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] , i.e., the expected number of ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 {\bar{\phi}}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT larger than e − χ ¯ superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 e^{-{\bar{\chi}}} italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
This result is similar to that for N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT following from Eq. (7 ), except the threshold is now e − χ ¯ superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 e^{-{\bar{\chi}}} italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT instead of χ ¯ − 1 superscript ¯ 𝜒 1 {\bar{\chi}}^{-1} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
Consequently, we predict that N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is controlled by the single shifted interaction parameter χ ¯ − ln ( N c − 1 ) ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 {\bar{\chi}}-\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) . Indeed, Fig. 1 d shows that this scaling collapses the data in a surprisingly large parameter range, even when the limits used in Eq. (9 ) are violated.
The data collapse that we identify in Fig. 1 d indicates that the interaction parameter χ i ≠ j = χ ¯ subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 ¯ 𝜒 \chi_{i\neq j}={\bar{\chi}} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i ≠ italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG needs to exceed roughly 3 + ln ( N c − 1 ) 3 subscript 𝑁 c 1 3+\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) 3 + roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) to have many phases (N ¯ p ≈ N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}\approx{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).
Since the stability analysis instead predicts a linear scaling of χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG with N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we conclude that stability analysis is not suited to predict phase counts when components exhibit identical interactions.
Figure 3:
More variable random interactions imply more phases. Normalized average number of unstable modes, ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (orange-purple), and normalized average number of coexisting phases, N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (green-blue), as a function of two different scalings of the standard deviation σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \sigma_{\chi} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the interactions for various component counts N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and χ ¯ = 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}=0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = 0 .
Each dot results from an average over 10 3 superscript 10 3 10^{3} 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT –10 4 superscript 10 4 10^{4} 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT pairs of random interaction matrices χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and compositions ϕ ¯ i subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 {\bar{\phi}}_{i} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
We next extend our results by varying the individual interactions as well as the composition.
For simplicity, we first consider vanishing mean interactions (χ ¯ = 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}=0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = 0 ) and instead vary the standard deviation σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the normal distribution governing the symmetric interaction matrix χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
In the case of equal composition (ϕ ¯ i = N c − 1 subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑁 c 1 {\bar{\phi}}_{i}={N_{\mathrm{c}}}^{-1} over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be obtained from the eigenvalues of the random interaction matrix, which are distributed according to Wigner’s semicircle law and scale with σ χ N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \sigma_{\chi}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG [20 ] .
The same scaling applies to the case of uniformly distributed compositions [25 ] , suggesting that the normalized number of unstable modes, ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , is controlled by σ χ / N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \sigma_{\chi}/\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG [20 , 24 ] .
Fig. 3 a shows that this scaling can indeed collapse data for N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , whereas it fails for the phase counts that we determined using our numerical algorithm.
To obtain a scaling for phase count, we recall the asymptotic scalings of N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT followed from expectation values involving the compositions and mean interaction strength χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , N ¯ u + 1 ∼ E N c [ ϕ ¯ i − 1 < χ ¯ ] similar-to subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] superscript subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1\sim E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[{\bar{\phi}}_{i}^{-1}<{\bar{%
\chi}}] over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ∼ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ] and N ¯ p ∼ E N c [ ϕ ¯ i − 1 < e χ ¯ ] similar-to subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] superscript subscript ¯ italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}\sim E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[{\bar{\phi}}_{i}^{-1}<e^{{\bar%
{\chi}}}] over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT < italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] .
These scalings suggest that interaction strengths related to unstable modes enter exponentially in similar expressions for the phase count.
Specifically, this idea indicates that the normalized phase count N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is controlled by the scaling parameter σ χ N c / ln N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c \sigma_{\chi}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}/\ln{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG / roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for random interaction matrices with vanishing mean (χ ¯ = 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}=0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = 0 ) [25 ] .
Indeed, Fig. 3 b reveals that this scaling collapses N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for sufficiently large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Thus, larger variations of the interactions lead to more phases, and N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT grows with N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT even when σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \sigma_{\chi} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is fixed.
In contrast, stability analysis suggests that σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \sigma_{\chi} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT needs to grow with N c subscript 𝑁 c \sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG to have the same fraction of unstable modes, so N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT severely underestimates the phase count N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , particularly for large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Figure 4:
Numerically estimated master functions for Eqs. (10 ).
(a) Normalized average number of unstable modes, ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , as a function of scaled mean interaction χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and standard deviation σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(b) Normalized average number of coexisting phases, N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , as a function of scaled χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(a, b) Functions were obtained by averaging 300 300 300 300 samples of random interaction matrices and compositions for each value of χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for component counts N c = 16 , 20 , 24 , 28 , 32 subscript 𝑁 c 16 20 24 28 32
{N_{\mathrm{c}}}=16,20,24,28,32 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 16 , 20 , 24 , 28 , 32 ; see [25 ] .
So far, we have identified how N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT scale with the component count N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT when interactions are identical (σ χ = 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 0 {\sigma_{\chi}}=0 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ) or their mean vanishes (χ ¯ = 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}=0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = 0 ).
To test whether these scalings persist when both σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG are nonzero, we next combine the control parameters derived for σ χ = 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 0 {\sigma_{\chi}}=0 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 (see Fig. 1 ) and for χ ¯ = 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}=0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = 0 (see Fig. 3 ) and postulate
N ¯ u + 1 N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle\frac{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG
≈ g u ( χ ¯ N c , σ χ N c ) and absent subscript 𝑔 u ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c and
\displaystyle\approx g_{\mathrm{u}}\left(\frac{{\bar{\chi}}}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}%
,\;\frac{{\sigma_{\chi}}}{\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}}\right)\qquad\text{and} ≈ italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG ) and
(10a)
N ¯ p N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle\frac{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG
≈ g p ( χ ¯ − ln ( N c − 1 ) , σ χ N c ln N c ) , absent subscript 𝑔 p ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle\approx g_{\mathrm{p}}\left({\bar{\chi}}-\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1),%
\;\frac{{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}}{\ln{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}}\right), ≈ italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) , divide start_ARG italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) ,
(10b)
where g u subscript 𝑔 u g_{\mathrm{u}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and g p subscript 𝑔 p g_{\mathrm{p}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are master functions for the number of unstable modes and coexisting phases, respectively.
We determine these functions by sampling random interaction matrices and random compositions for several components counts N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ; see Fig. 4 .
Fig. A2 [25 ] shows that the deviation of the prediction of Eqs. (10 ) to the actually measured N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is low in most parameter regions, implying that the proposed scaling captures the essence for different N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Fig. 4 shows that both master functions are qualitatively similar:
They are close to 0 0 for strongly attractive interactions (large negative χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and small σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and they converge to 1 1 1 1 when repulsive interactions dominate (large χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and small σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), implying N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT coexisting phases.
In contrast, both master functions predict 1 2 N c 1 2 subscript 𝑁 c \frac{1}{2}{N_{\mathrm{c}}} divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for strongly varying interactions (small χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and large σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), and the respective influence of χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG can be approximated analytically [25 ] .
While the master functions exhibit similarities, the axes are scaled very differently, implying different interpretations of what constitutes large interactions:
For large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , the mean interactions χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and the variance σ χ 2 superscript subscript 𝜎 𝜒 2 \sigma_{\chi}^{2} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT need to scale with N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to obtain similar fractions g u subscript 𝑔 u g_{\mathrm{u}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of unstable modes.
In contrast, the predictions for the phase count implies a much weaker dependence on N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Our results indicate that the interactions necessary to have large phase counts scale weakly with the component count N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Consequently, even moderate interaction strengths of a few k B T subscript 𝑘 B 𝑇 k_{\mathrm{B}}T italic_k start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_B end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T could lead to many coexisting phases, even for thousands of components, like in biological cells.
In contrast, large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT stabilizes the homogeneous state and much stronger interactions are necessary to have many unstable modes.
On the one hand, this suggests that linear stability analysis is inadequate to investigate multiphase coexistence.
On the other hand, the result implies that such multicomponent systems have an enormous parameter regime where multiple states are locally stable, enabling controlled transitions.
For instance, biological cells could use active processes to form or dissolve droplets by crossing thermodynamic barriers [27 ] .
To answer such questions and engineer such systems, a detailed understanding of the geometry of phase space, preferably for realistic interactions (e.g. including higher-order interactions [32 ] ), would be helpful.
Our scaling relations, and particularly the numerical method to determine coexisting phases, will guide future research in this direction.
The source code for this article is openly available from github XXX.
Acknowledgements.
We thank Thomas Michaels, Filipe Thewes and Peter Sollich for helpful discussions.
We thank Filipe Thewes and Gerrit Wellecke for critical reading of the manuscript.
We gratefully acknowledge funding from the Max Planck Society and the European Union (ERC, EmulSim, 101044662).
References
Hyman et al. [2014]
A. A. Hyman, C. A. Weber, and F. Jülicher, Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology 30 , 39 (2014) .
Banani et al. [2017]
S. F. Banani, H. O. Lee,
A. A. Hyman, and M. K. Rosen, Nat
Rev Mol Cell Biol 18 , 285 (2017) .
Lafontaine et al. [2021]
D. L. J. Lafontaine, J. A. Riback, R. Bascetin, and C. P. Brangwynne, Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 22 , 165 (2021) .
Azaldegui et al. [2021]
C. A. Azaldegui, A. G. Vecchiarelli, and J. S. Biteen, Biophysical Journal 120 , 1123 (2021) .
Telford [2004]
M. Telford, Materials Today 7 , 36 (2004) .
George et al. [2019]
E. P. George, D. Raabe, and R. O. Ritchie, Nat Rev Mater 4 , 515 (2019) .
Flory [1942]
P. J. Flory, J. Chem. Phys. 10 , 51 (1942) .
Huggins [1941]
M. L. Huggins, J. Chem. Phys. 9 , 440 (1941) .
Weber et al. [2019]
C. A. Weber, D. Zwicker,
F. Jülicher, and C. F. Lee, Rep. Prog. Phys. 82 , 064601 (2019) .
Jacobs [2023]
W. M. Jacobs, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 19 , 3429 (2023) .
Zwicker and Laan [2022]
D. Zwicker and L. Laan, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 119 , e2201250119 (2022) .
Chen and Jacobs [2023]
F. Chen and W. M. Jacobs, The Journal of Chemical Physics 158 , 214118 (2023) .
Teixeira et al. [2023]
R. B. Teixeira, G. Carugno,
I. Neri, and P. Sartori, “Liquid Hopfield
model: Retrieval and localization in heterogeneous liquid mixtures,”
(2023), arxiv:2310.18853 [cond-mat, physics:physics, q-bio] .
Qian et al. [2023]
D. Qian, H. Ausserwoger,
W. E. Arter, R. M. Scrutton, T. J. Welsh, T. Kartanas, N. Ermann, S. Qamar, C. Fischer, T. Sneideris, P. S. George-Hyslop, R. V. Pappu, and T. P. J. Knowles, “Linking modulation of bio-molecular phase
behaviour with collective interactions,” (2023).
Jacobs and Frenkel [2013]
W. M. Jacobs and D. Frenkel, The Journal of Chemical Physics 139 , 024108 (2013) .
Shrinivas and Brenner [2021]
K. Shrinivas and M. P. Brenner, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118 , e2108551118 (2021) .
Sartori and Leibler [2020]
P. Sartori and S. Leibler, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117 , 114 (2020) .
Das and Puri [2002]
S. K. Das and S. Puri, Phys. Rev. E 65 , 026141 (2002) .
Mao et al. [2019]
S. Mao, D. Kuldinow,
M. P. Haataja, and A. Košmrlj, Soft Matter 15 , 1297
(2019) .
Sear and Cuesta [2003]
R. P. Sear and J. A. Cuesta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 , 245701 (2003) .
Sear [2005]
R. P. Sear, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 17 , S3587 (2005) .
Jacobs and Frenkel [2017]
W. M. Jacobs and D. Frenkel, Biophysical Journal 112 , 683 (2017) .
Graf and Machta [2022]
I. R. Graf and B. B. Machta, Phys. Rev. Res. 4 , 033144 (2022) .
Thewes et al. [2023]
F. C. Thewes, M. Krüger,
and P. Sollich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 , 058401 (2023) .
[25]
See Supplemental Material at [URL
placeholder] for theoretical details, numerical methods and supplemental
figures.
McMaster [1973]
L. P. McMaster, Macromolecules 6 , 760 (1973) .
Zwicker [2022]
D. Zwicker, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci 61 , 101606 (2022) .
Gibbs [1876]
J. W. Gibbs, Trans.
Conn. Acad. Arts Sci 3 , 108 (1876).
Mester et al. [2013]
Z. Mester, N. A. Lynd, and G. H. Fredrickson, Soft Matter 9 , 11288 (2013) .
Panagiotopoulos [1995]
A. Z. Panagiotopoulos, in Observation, Prediction and Simulation
of Phase Transitions in Complex Fluids , Nato Science Series C, edited by M. Baus, L. F. Rull, and J.-P. Ryckaert (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1995) pp. 463–501.
Smit and Frenkel [1989]
B. Smit and D. Frenkel, Molecular Physics 68 , 951 (1989) .
Luo et al. [2024]
C. Luo, Y. Qiang, and D. Zwicker, “Beyond
Pairwise: Higher-order physical interactions affect phase separation
in multi-component liquids,” (2024), arxiv:2403.06666 [cond-mat,
physics:physics] .
Appendix A Hessian of the free energy of homogeneous states
The stability of the homogeneous state is given by the eigenvalues of the Hessian of the free energy in Eq. (1 ),
∂ 2 f ∂ ϕ i ∂ ϕ j = χ i j + δ i j ϕ i − χ 1 j − χ i 1 + χ 11 + 1 ϕ 1 , superscript 2 𝑓 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 subscript 𝛿 𝑖 𝑗 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝜒 1 𝑗 subscript 𝜒 𝑖 1 subscript 𝜒 11 1 subscript italic-ϕ 1 \displaystyle\frac{\partial^{2}f}{\partial\phi_{i}\partial\phi_{j}}=\chi_{ij}+%
\frac{\delta_{ij}}{\phi_{i}}-\chi_{1j}-\chi_{i1}+\chi_{11}+\frac{1}{\phi_{1}}, divide start_ARG ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG = italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 11 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ,
(A1)
with i , j ∈ [ 2 , N c ] 𝑖 𝑗
2 subscript 𝑁 c i,j\in[2,{N_{\mathrm{c}}}] italic_i , italic_j ∈ [ 2 , italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] .
Note that this is a ( N c − 1 ) subscript 𝑁 c 1 ({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) -dimensional matrix since we removed the dependency on ϕ 1 subscript italic-ϕ 1 \phi_{1} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , using ϕ 1 = 1 − ∑ i = 2 N c ϕ i subscript italic-ϕ 1 1 superscript subscript 𝑖 2 subscript 𝑁 c subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 \phi_{1}=1-\sum_{i=2}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{i} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Appendix B Stability and coexisting phases with identical interactions and symmetric composition
With identical interactions, χ i j = χ ¯ ( 1 − δ i j ) subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 ¯ 𝜒 1 subscript 𝛿 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij}={\bar{\chi}}(1-\delta_{ij}) italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ( 1 - italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , and symmetric composition, ϕ i = 1 / N c subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{i}=1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , the free energy density, given by Eq. (1 ) reads
f = N c − 1 2 N c χ ¯ − ln N c . 𝑓 subscript 𝑁 c 1 2 subscript 𝑁 c ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle f=\frac{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}{2{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}{\bar{\chi}}-\ln{N%
_{\mathrm{c}}}\;. italic_f = divide start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(A2)
Similarly, the Hessian given by Eq. (A1 ) simplifies to ∂ 2 f / ∂ ϕ i ∂ ϕ j = ( δ i j + 1 ) ( N c − χ ) superscript 2 𝑓 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 subscript 𝛿 𝑖 𝑗 1 subscript 𝑁 c 𝜒 \partial^{2}f/\partial\phi_{i}\partial\phi_{j}=(\delta_{ij}+1)({N_{\mathrm{c}}%
}-\chi) ∂ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f / ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_χ ) .
The homogeneous state is unstable when the Hessian is no longer positive definite, leading to
χ ¯ > N c ; ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle{\bar{\chi}}>{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\;; over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG > italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ;
(A3)
see the blue line in Fig. A1 .
Figure A1:
Phase count differs from number of unstable modes in liquids with with identical interactions and symmetric composition.
A homogeneous mixture is unstable for interactions χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG above the spinodal (blue line).
In contrast, phase separation is energetically favorable for χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG above the binodal (orange line).
The black line shows the analytical approximation given by Eq. (A5 ).
For the coexisting phases in equilibrium, we focus on the simples state that the mixture might separate into.
Due to permutational symmetry, we assume that each one of the candidate coexisting phases enriches one component with volume fraction ϕ h = 1 − ( N c − 1 ) ϕ l subscript italic-ϕ h 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript italic-ϕ l \phi_{\mathrm{h}}=1-({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1)\phi_{\mathrm{l}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 - ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , while all other components have the same volume fraction ϕ l subscript italic-ϕ l \phi_{\mathrm{l}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
We will show below that this assumption is reasonable for sufficient large χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG .
In this case, the free energy density reads
f ( ϕ l ) 𝑓 subscript italic-ϕ l \displaystyle f(\phi_{\mathrm{l}}) italic_f ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
= ( N c − 1 ) χ ¯ ϕ h ϕ l + ( N c − 1 ) ( N c − 2 ) 2 χ ¯ ϕ l 2 + ϕ h ln ϕ h + ( N c − 1 ) ϕ l ln ϕ l . absent subscript 𝑁 c 1 ¯ 𝜒 subscript italic-ϕ h subscript italic-ϕ l subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript 𝑁 c 2 2 ¯ 𝜒 superscript subscript italic-ϕ l 2 subscript italic-ϕ h subscript italic-ϕ h subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript italic-ϕ l subscript italic-ϕ l \displaystyle=({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1){\bar{\chi}}\phi_{\mathrm{h}}\phi_{\mathrm{l%
}}+\frac{({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1)({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-2)}{2}{\bar{\chi}}\phi_{\mathrm%
{l}}^{2}+\phi_{\mathrm{h}}\ln\phi_{\mathrm{h}}+({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1)\phi_{%
\mathrm{l}}\ln\phi_{\mathrm{l}}\;. = ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 ) end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ln italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_ln italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(A4)
Note that Eq. (A4 ) reduces to Eq. (A2 ) when ϕ h = ϕ l = 1 / N c subscript italic-ϕ h subscript italic-ϕ l 1 subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{\mathrm{h}}=\phi_{\mathrm{l}}=1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Since all coexisting phases have the same free energy density due to permutational symmetry, the coexisting phases are energetically favored over the homogeneous state if the minimal value of Eq. (A4 ) is lower than that of the homogeneous state given by Eq. (A2 ).
Fig. A1 shows the results from a numerical minimization of Eq. (A4 ) compared to Eq. (A2 ).
To obtain an analytical approximation of the minimal interaction strength necessary for phase separation, we note that with ϕ l → + 0 → subscript italic-ϕ l 0 \phi_{\mathrm{l}}\rightarrow+0 italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → + 0 , the free energy f ( ϕ l ) → 0 → 𝑓 subscript italic-ϕ l 0 f(\phi_{\mathrm{l}})\rightarrow 0 italic_f ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) → 0 , while its derivative d f / d ϕ l → − ∞ → d 𝑓 d subscript italic-ϕ l {\mathrm{d}}f/{\mathrm{d}}\phi_{\mathrm{l}}\rightarrow-\infty roman_d italic_f / roman_d italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT → - ∞ .
Using the mean value theorem, we then conclude that Eq. (A4 ) will have a minimum lower than Eq. (A2 ) when f 𝑓 f italic_f given by Eq. (A2 ) is positive, implying
χ ¯ > 2 N c N c − 1 ln N c , ¯ 𝜒 2 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle{\bar{\chi}}>\frac{2{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}\ln{N_{%
\mathrm{c}}}\;, over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG > divide start_ARG 2 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_ARG roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(A5)
which is Eq. (4 ) in the main text.
We further consider the volume fraction of the dilute components in these coexisting phases, which minimizes Eq. (A2 ).
The dilute fraction ϕ ∗ ( N c ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT that minimizes f 𝑓 f italic_f satisfies the equation
χ ¯ = 1 1 − N c ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ( ln [ 1 − ( N c − 1 ) ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ] − ln ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ) . ¯ 𝜒 1 1 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \displaystyle{\bar{\chi}}=\frac{1}{1-{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}%
}})}}\biggl{(}\ln\left[1-({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1)\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}%
\right]-\ln\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}\biggr{)}\;. over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 1 - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ( roman_ln [ 1 - ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ] - roman_ln italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
(A6)
Assuming that ϕ ∗ ( N c ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is much smaller that 1 / N c 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we obtain
ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ≈ − W [ N c ( χ ¯ − 1 ) − 1 ] N c ( χ ¯ − 1 ) − 1 , superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c 𝑊 delimited-[] subscript 𝑁 c ¯ 𝜒 1 1 subscript 𝑁 c ¯ 𝜒 1 1 \displaystyle\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}\approx-\frac{W\left[{N_{\mathrm{c}}%
}({\bar{\chi}}-1)-1\right]}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}({\bar{\chi}}-1)-1}\;, italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≈ - divide start_ARG italic_W [ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - 1 ) - 1 ] end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - 1 ) - 1 end_ARG ,
(A7)
where W ( r ) 𝑊 𝑟 W(r) italic_W ( italic_r ) is the Lambert W 𝑊 W italic_W function, which satisfies W ( r ) e W ( r ) = r 𝑊 𝑟 superscript 𝑒 𝑊 𝑟 𝑟 W(r)e^{W(r)}=r italic_W ( italic_r ) italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_W ( italic_r ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_r .
When χ ¯ ≫ ln N c much-greater-than ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}\gg\ln{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ≫ roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , the equation above can be further simplified to
ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ⟶ χ ¯ → ∞ e − χ ¯ , superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c → ¯ 𝜒 ⟶ superscript 𝑒 ¯ 𝜒 \displaystyle\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}\overset{{\bar{\chi}}\rightarrow%
\infty}{\longrightarrow}e^{-{\bar{\chi}}}\;, italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_OVERACCENT over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG → ∞ end_OVERACCENT start_ARG ⟶ end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(A8)
which is independent of N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Note that Eq. (A8 ) also shows that the assumption ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ≪ 1 / N c much-less-than superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}\ll 1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≪ 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is valid when χ ¯ ≫ ln N c much-greater-than ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}\gg\ln{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ≫ roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
We next show that for sufficient high value of χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG it is optimal for the system with identical interactions and symmetric composition to separate into phases which each enrich one component.
In the case of identical interactions and average volume fractions, the coexisting states in equilibrium must have the same free energy density, which can be proved by contradiction:
Assuming coexisting states have different free energy energies in equilibrium, there must exist one of the coexisting states that have the lowest free energy density.
Suppose such phase has a volume fraction vector ϕ = [ ϕ 1 , ϕ 2 … ϕ N c ] bold-italic-ϕ subscript italic-ϕ 1 subscript italic-ϕ 2 … subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \boldsymbol{\phi}=[\phi_{1},\phi_{2}\ldots\phi_{N_{\mathrm{c}}}] bold_italic_ϕ = [ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] , then a new collection of phases can be constructed by permuting the vector.
Since all the interactions are identical, these phases share the same free energy density, while the average volume fractions must be symmetric, meaning that the collection itself becomes a valid candidate of the coexisting state.
Since this collection has lower free energy density than the original coexisting states, the initial assumption of equilibrium is violated.
Taken together, for identical interactions and average volume fractions, all coexisting states must have the same free energy density in equilibrium.
As the result of equal free energy density, the composition of the coexisting phases must be the local minimizer of the free energy function, otherwise a new set of coexisting phases with lower free energy can be found.
Therefore, the compositions must satisfy ∂ f / ∂ ϕ i = 0 𝑓 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 0 {\partial f}/{\partial\phi_{i}}=0 ∂ italic_f / ∂ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 , leading to
− χ ¯ ϕ i + ln ϕ i = constant ¯ 𝜒 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 constant \displaystyle-{\bar{\chi}}\phi_{i}+\ln\phi_{i}=\mathrm{constant} - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + roman_ln italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_constant
(A9)
for i = 1 , 2 … N c 𝑖 1 2 … subscript 𝑁 c
i=1,2\ldots{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_i = 1 , 2 … italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , where the constant is the same across different i 𝑖 i italic_i .
Since the function − χ ¯ ϕ + ln ϕ ¯ 𝜒 italic-ϕ italic-ϕ -{\bar{\chi}}\phi+\ln\phi - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG italic_ϕ + roman_ln italic_ϕ can at most have two piecewise monotonic domains in ( 0 , 1 ) 0 1 (0,1) ( 0 , 1 ) , the equation above can only have at most two solutions, meaning that each component can either be dilute or concentrated, while all the dilute components share the same composition ϕ l subscript italic-ϕ l \phi_{\mathrm{l}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and all the concentrated components share the same composition ϕ h subscript italic-ϕ h \phi_{\mathrm{h}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Suppose the system would phase separate into phases that enrich K 𝐾 K italic_K components with volume fraction ϕ h subscript italic-ϕ h \phi_{\mathrm{h}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , then in each phase N c − K subscript 𝑁 c 𝐾 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}-K italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_K components are dilute and share the volume fraction ϕ l subscript italic-ϕ l \phi_{\mathrm{l}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , satisfying K ϕ h + ( N c − K ) ϕ l = 1 𝐾 subscript italic-ϕ h subscript 𝑁 c 𝐾 subscript italic-ϕ l 1 K\phi_{\mathrm{h}}+({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-K)\phi_{\mathrm{l}}=1 italic_K italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_K ) italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 .
Similar to Eq. (A6 ), we denote by ϕ l = ϕ ∗ ( N c ) subscript italic-ϕ l superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{\mathrm{l}}=\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT the volume fraction that minimizes the free energy, which satisfies
χ ¯ = ln ϕ h − ln ϕ l ϕ h − ϕ l . ¯ 𝜒 subscript italic-ϕ h subscript italic-ϕ l subscript italic-ϕ h subscript italic-ϕ l \displaystyle{\bar{\chi}}=\frac{\ln\phi_{\mathrm{h}}-\ln\phi_{\mathrm{l}}}{%
\phi_{\mathrm{h}}-\phi_{\mathrm{l}}}\;. over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = divide start_ARG roman_ln italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - roman_ln italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .
(A10)
In the limit ϕ l ≪ 1 much-less-than subscript italic-ϕ l 1 \phi_{\mathrm{l}}\ll 1 italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_l end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≪ 1 , we find
ϕ ∗ ( N c ) ≈ 1 K e − K χ ¯ . superscript subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c 1 𝐾 superscript 𝑒 𝐾 ¯ 𝜒 \displaystyle\phi_{*}^{({N_{\mathrm{c}}})}\approx\frac{1}{K}e^{-K{\bar{\chi}}}\;. italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≈ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_K end_ARG italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_K over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
(A11)
Since the right hand side decrease monotonically with K 𝐾 K italic_K for χ ¯ > 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}>0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG > 0 , the dilute components become more dilute for large K 𝐾 K italic_K .
For sufficient large value of χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , the enriched components will take over the vast majority of the phase (ϕ h ≈ K − 1 subscript italic-ϕ h superscript 𝐾 1 \phi_{\mathrm{h}}\approx K^{-1} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_h end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ italic_K start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), making these enriched components themselves a subsystem with K 𝐾 K italic_K components with equal interactions and almost the same total volume fraction as the original one.
This subsystem will undergo phase separation since the homogeneous state is more prone to phase separation for fewer components; see Fig. A1 .
Taken together, the system prefers to enrich one component in each phase since the concentrated components would otherwise phase separate from each other.
Intuitively, in the identical interactions and symmetric compositions case, all components dislike each other and they just prefer to separate from the others when possible.
States that enrich two components are not preferred since there are no other factors, e.g. higher-ordered interactions, to stabilize them [32 ] .
Appendix C Relation between number of unstable modes and composition with identical interactions
We here consider the number of unstable modes averaged over the entire phase diagram for identical interactions, χ i j = χ ¯ ( 1 − δ i j ) subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 ¯ 𝜒 1 subscript 𝛿 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij}={\bar{\chi}}(1-\delta_{ij}) italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ( 1 - italic_δ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
The Hessian given by Eq. (A1 ) can be simplified and rewritten in matrix form,
𝑯 = diag { 1 ϕ i − χ } i = 2 N c + ( 1 ϕ 1 − χ ) 𝒖 𝒖 T , 𝑯 diag superscript subscript 1 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝜒 𝑖 2 subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript italic-ϕ 1 𝜒 𝒖 superscript 𝒖 𝑇 \displaystyle\boldsymbol{H}=\mathrm{diag}\left\{\frac{1}{\phi_{i}}-\chi\right%
\}_{i=2}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}+\left(\frac{1}{\phi_{1}}-\chi\right)\boldsymbol{u}%
\boldsymbol{u}^{T}\;, bold_italic_H = roman_diag { divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ ) bold_italic_u bold_italic_u start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(A12)
where 𝒖 𝒖 \boldsymbol{u} bold_italic_u is a all-one vector in N c − 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 dimensions.
Denote the rank-n 𝑛 n italic_n leading minor of 𝑯 𝑯 \boldsymbol{H} bold_italic_H by 𝑯 n subscript 𝑯 𝑛 \boldsymbol{H}_{n} bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
𝑯 n = diag { 1 ϕ i − χ } i = 2 n + 1 + ( 1 ϕ 1 − χ ) 𝒖 n 𝒖 n T , subscript 𝑯 𝑛 diag superscript subscript 1 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝜒 𝑖 2 𝑛 1 1 subscript italic-ϕ 1 𝜒 subscript 𝒖 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝒖 𝑛 𝑇 \displaystyle\boldsymbol{H}_{n}=\mathrm{diag}\left\{\frac{1}{\phi_{i}}-\chi%
\right\}_{i=2}^{n+1}+\left(\frac{1}{\phi_{1}}-\chi\right)\boldsymbol{u}_{n}%
\boldsymbol{u}_{n}^{T}\;, bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_diag { divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ ) bold_italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
(A13)
with n = 1 , 2 … N c − 1 𝑛 1 2 … subscript 𝑁 c 1
n=1,2\ldots{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1 italic_n = 1 , 2 … italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 and 𝒖 n subscript 𝒖 𝑛 \boldsymbol{u}_{n} bold_italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a all-one vector in n 𝑛 n italic_n dimensions.
Making use of Cauchy interlacing theorem, the number of negative eigenvalues of 𝑯 𝑯 \boldsymbol{H} bold_italic_H can be obtained by calculating the number of sign changes in the sequence
det 𝑯 0 , det 𝑯 1 , … , det 𝑯 N c − 1 , subscript 𝑯 0 subscript 𝑯 1 … subscript 𝑯 subscript 𝑁 c 1
\displaystyle\det{\boldsymbol{H}_{0}},\det{\boldsymbol{H}_{1}},\ldots,\det{%
\boldsymbol{H}_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1}}\;, roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ,
(A14)
where det 𝑯 0 subscript 𝑯 0 \det{\boldsymbol{H}_{0}} roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is defined to be 1.
Using the Weinstein-Aronszajn identity, det 𝑯 n subscript 𝑯 𝑛 \det{\boldsymbol{H}_{n}} roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be calculated,
det 𝑯 n subscript 𝑯 𝑛 \displaystyle\det{\boldsymbol{H}_{n}} roman_det bold_italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= ( 1 ϕ 1 − χ ) n det diag { ϕ i − 1 − χ ϕ 1 − 1 − χ } i = 2 n + 1 det ( 𝑰 + 𝒖 n 𝒖 n T diag { ϕ 1 − 1 − χ ϕ i − 1 − χ } i = 2 n + 1 ) absent superscript 1 subscript italic-ϕ 1 𝜒 𝑛 diag superscript subscript superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 𝜒 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 1 1 𝜒 𝑖 2 𝑛 1 𝑰 subscript 𝒖 𝑛 superscript subscript 𝒖 𝑛 𝑇 diag superscript subscript superscript subscript italic-ϕ 1 1 𝜒 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 𝜒 𝑖 2 𝑛 1 \displaystyle=\left(\frac{1}{\phi_{1}}-\chi\right)^{n}\det\mathrm{diag}\left\{%
\frac{\phi_{i}^{-1}-\chi}{\phi_{1}^{-1}-\chi}\right\}_{i=2}^{n+1}\det\left(%
\boldsymbol{I}+\boldsymbol{u}_{n}\boldsymbol{u}_{n}^{T}\mathrm{diag}\left\{%
\frac{\phi_{1}^{-1}-\chi}{\phi_{i}^{-1}-\chi}\right\}_{i=2}^{n+1}\right) = ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_det roman_diag { divide start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_χ end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_χ end_ARG } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_det ( bold_italic_I + bold_italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_diag { divide start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_χ end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_χ end_ARG } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
= ∏ i = 1 N c ( 1 ϕ i − χ ) ( ∑ i = 1 N c 1 1 ϕ i − χ ) . absent superscript subscript product 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝜒 superscript subscript 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 1 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝜒 \displaystyle=\prod_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\left(\frac{1}{\phi_{i}}-\chi\right)%
\left(\sum_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\phi_{i}}-\chi}\right). = ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ ) ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ end_ARG ) .
(A15)
We here assume ϕ i − 1 ≠ χ superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 𝜒 \phi_{i}^{-1}\neq\chi italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ italic_χ since we are interested in the average behavior over the entire phase diagram, where the points violating this condition have zero measure.
Since the number of negative eigenvalues is invariant under any proper rotation, we can also require that sequence
1 ϕ 1 − χ , 1 ϕ 2 − χ , … , 1 ϕ N c − χ 1 subscript italic-ϕ 1 𝜒 1 subscript italic-ϕ 2 𝜒 … 1 subscript italic-ϕ subscript 𝑁 c 𝜒
\displaystyle\frac{1}{\phi_{1}}-\chi,\frac{1}{\phi_{2}}-\chi,\ldots,\frac{1}{%
\phi_{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}-\chi divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ , … , divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG - italic_χ
(A16)
decreases monotonically.
Comparing Eq. (A14 ) and Eq. (A15 ) with Seq. A16 , we obtain that the number of sign changes in Seq. A14 can only be either the number of negative elements in Seq. A16 , denoted by N − subscript 𝑁 N_{-} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , or one less, N − − 1 subscript 𝑁 1 N_{-}-1 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , since the term ∑ i = 1 N c 1 / ( ϕ i − 1 − χ ) superscript subscript 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 𝜒 \sum_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}1/(\phi_{i}^{-1}-\chi) ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_χ ) can at most change the sign once itself and cancel the sign changes of ∏ i = 1 N c ( ϕ i − 1 − χ ) superscript subscript product 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 𝜒 \prod_{i=1}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}(\phi_{i}^{-1}-\chi) ∏ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_χ ) once.
We thus obtain the relationship between N u subscript 𝑁 u {N_{\mathrm{u}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and N − subscript 𝑁 N_{-} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT - end_POSTSUBSCRIPT given in the main text.
Appendix D Numerical algorithm for finding coexisting phases
There are multiple challenges for determining equilibrium coexisting states in multi-component mixture:
First, the optimization problem is high-dimensional.
Second, different types of constrains, such as incompressibility and volume conservation, need to be satisfied.
In addition, it is generally difficult to conclude whether the obtained coexisting states are the true equilibrium or metastable states.
In a previous publication [11 ] , we already designed an efficient algorithm to obtain coexisting states by exchanging components between compartments, guided by thermodynamic properties such as osmotic pressure and chemical potential.
To achieve high performance, the constraint of volume conservation was relaxed, making it difficult to uniformly sample the entire phase diagram, which was highlighted in ref. [10 ] .
To circumvent these challenges, we here design an improved method based on a free energy optimization strategy inspired by polymeric field theories, where the volume conservation is automatically guaranteed by introducing conjugate fields.
The equilibrium coexisting states can be obtained by optimizing the average free energy density given by Eq. (2 ) in the main text over all possible phase counts and phase compositions.
To allow different phase counts, we consider an ensemble of M 𝑀 M italic_M abstract compartments as proposed in ref. [11 ] , where M 𝑀 M italic_M is much larger than the number of components N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
To alleviate the problem of negative volume fractions during the relaxation dynamics and conserve the average volume fractions, we extend the free energy of Eq. (2 ) into the form
f ¯ ¯ 𝑓 \displaystyle\bar{f} over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG
= ∑ m = 1 M J m [ 1 2 ∑ i , j N c χ i j ϕ i ( m ) ϕ j ( m ) − ∑ i N c w i ( m ) ϕ i ( m ) + ξ m ( ∑ i N c ϕ i ( m ) − 1 ) ] − ∑ i N ϕ i ¯ ln Q i + η ( ∑ m M J m − 1 ) , absent superscript subscript 𝑚 1 𝑀 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 delimited-[] 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑖 𝑗
subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 subscript 𝜉 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 1 superscript subscript 𝑖 𝑁 ¯ subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝑄 𝑖 𝜂 superscript subscript 𝑚 𝑀 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 1 \displaystyle=\sum_{m=1}^{M}J_{m}\left[\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}%
\chi_{ij}\phi_{i}^{(m)}\phi_{j}^{(m)}-\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}w_{i}^{(m)}\phi%
_{i}^{(m)}+\xi_{m}\biggl{(}\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{i}^{(m)}-1\biggr{)}%
\right]-\sum_{i}^{N}\bar{\phi_{i}}\ln Q_{i}+\eta\biggl{(}\sum_{m}^{M}J_{m}-1%
\biggr{)}, = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) ] - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_ln italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_η ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) ,
(A17)
with
Q i = ∑ m M J m exp ( − w i ( m ) ) . subscript 𝑄 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑚 𝑀 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle Q_{i}=\sum_{m}^{M}J_{m}\exp\left(-w_{i}^{(m)}\right). italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_exp ( - italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
(A18)
Here, J m subscript 𝐽 𝑚 J_{m} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are the relative volumes of the compartments, w i ( m ) superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 w_{i}^{(m)} italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are the conjugate variables of ϕ i ( m ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 \phi_{i}^{(m)} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , and ξ m subscript 𝜉 𝑚 \xi_{m} italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and η 𝜂 \eta italic_η are the Lagrangian multipliers for incompressibility of each compartment and compartment volume conservation, respectively.
Consequently, the extremum of Eq. (A17 ) with respect to ξ ( x ) 𝜉 𝑥 \xi(x) italic_ξ ( italic_x ) corresponds to incompressibility,
∂ f ¯ ∂ ξ m ∝ ( ∑ i N c ϕ i ( m ) − 1 ) J m = 0 ⇒ ∑ i N c ϕ i ( m ) = 1 , formulae-sequence proportional-to ¯ 𝑓 subscript 𝜉 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 1 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 0 ⇒ superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚
1 \displaystyle\frac{\partial\bar{f}}{\partial\xi_{m}}\propto\biggl{(}\sum_{i}^{%
N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{i}^{(m)}-1\biggr{)}J_{m}=0\quad\quad\Rightarrow\quad\quad%
\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{i}^{(m)}=1\;, divide start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ∝ ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ⇒ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = 1 ,
(A19)
the extremum with respect to η 𝜂 \eta italic_η corresponds to conservation of the total volume of all compartments,
∂ f ¯ ∂ η ∝ ∑ m M J m − 1 = 0 ⇒ ∑ m M J m = 1 , formulae-sequence proportional-to ¯ 𝑓 𝜂 superscript subscript 𝑚 𝑀 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 1 0 ⇒ superscript subscript 𝑚 𝑀 subscript 𝐽 𝑚
1 \displaystyle\frac{\partial\bar{f}}{\partial\eta}\propto\sum_{m}^{M}J_{m}-1=0%
\quad\quad\Rightarrow\quad\quad\sum_{m}^{M}J_{m}=1\;, divide start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_η end_ARG ∝ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 = 0 ⇒ ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 ,
(A20)
and the extremum with respect to w i ( m ) superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 w_{i}^{(m)} italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT defines the relationship between ϕ i ( m ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 \phi_{i}^{(m)} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and w i ( m ) superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 w_{i}^{(m)} italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
∂ f ¯ ∂ w i ( m ) ∝ − ϕ i ( m ) J m + ϕ i ¯ Q i exp ( − w i ( m ) ) J m = 0 ⇒ ϕ i ( m ) = ϕ i ¯ Q i exp ( − w i ( m ) ) . formulae-sequence proportional-to ¯ 𝑓 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 ¯ subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝑄 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 0 ⇒ superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚
¯ subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝑄 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle\frac{\partial\bar{f}}{\partial w_{i}^{(m)}}\propto-\phi_{i}^{(m)%
}J_{m}+\frac{\bar{\phi_{i}}}{Q_{i}}\exp\left(-w_{i}^{(m)}\right)J_{m}=0\quad%
\quad\Rightarrow\quad\quad\phi_{i}^{(m)}=\frac{\bar{\phi_{i}}}{Q_{i}}\exp\left%
(-w_{i}^{(m)}\right). divide start_ARG ∂ over¯ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG ∂ italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG ∝ - italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 ⇒ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .
(A21)
By inserting Eqs. (A19 )–(A21 ) into Eq. (A17 ), Eq. (2 ) is recovered except for a constant, which has no influences on thermodynamics.
To optimize the free energy density given by Eq. (A17 ), we obtain the self-consistent equations
1 1 \displaystyle 1 1
= ∑ i N c ϕ i ( m ) absent superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle=\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{i}^{(m)} = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
(A22a)
1 1 \displaystyle 1 1
= ∑ m M J m absent superscript subscript 𝑚 𝑀 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 \displaystyle=\sum_{m}^{M}J_{m} = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(A22b)
ϕ i ( m ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle\phi_{i}^{(m)} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= ϕ i ¯ Q i exp ( − w i ( m ) ) absent ¯ subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝑄 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle=\frac{\bar{\phi_{i}}}{Q_{i}}\exp\left(-w_{i}^{(m)}\right) = divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
(A22c)
w i ( m ) superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)} italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= ∑ j N c χ i j ϕ j ( m ) + ξ m absent superscript subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 𝑚 subscript 𝜉 𝑚 \displaystyle=\sum_{j}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\chi_{ij}\phi_{j}^{(m)}+\xi_{m} = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(A22d)
− η 𝜂 \displaystyle-\eta - italic_η
= 1 2 ∑ i , j N c χ i j ϕ i ( m ) ϕ j ( m ) − ∑ i N c w i ( m ) ϕ i ( m ) + ξ m ( ∑ i N c ϕ i ( m ) − 1 ) + ∑ i ϕ i ( m ) . absent 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑖 𝑗
subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 subscript 𝜉 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 1 subscript 𝑖 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\chi_{ij}\phi_{i}^{(m)}%
\phi_{j}^{(m)}-\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}w_{i}^{(m)}\phi_{i}^{(m)}+\xi_{m}%
\biggl{(}\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{i}^{(m)}-1\biggr{)}+\sum_{i}\phi_{i}^{%
(m)}. = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
(A22e)
Accordingly, we design the following iterative scheme
Q i ( m ) superscript subscript 𝑄 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle Q_{i}^{(m)} italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= ∑ m M exp ( − w i ( m ) ) J m absent superscript subscript 𝑚 𝑀 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 \displaystyle=\sum_{m}^{M}\exp\left(-w_{i}^{(m)}\right)J_{m} = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_exp ( - italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(A23a)
ϕ i ( m ) superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle\phi_{i}^{(m)} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= ϕ i ¯ Q i ( m ) exp ( − w i ( m ) ) absent ¯ subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 superscript subscript 𝑄 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle=\frac{\bar{\phi_{i}}}{Q_{i}^{(m)}}\exp\left(-w_{i}^{(m)}\right) = divide start_ARG over¯ start_ARG italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG end_ARG start_ARG italic_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG roman_exp ( - italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
(A23b)
ξ m subscript 𝜉 𝑚 \displaystyle\xi_{m} italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= 1 N c ( ∑ i N c w i ( m ) − ∑ i , j N c χ i j ϕ j ( m ) ) absent 1 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 𝑗
subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 𝑚 \displaystyle=\frac{1}{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\left(\sum_{i}^{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}w_{i}%
^{(m)}-\sum_{i,j}^{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\chi_{ij}\phi_{j}^{(m)}\right) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
(A23c)
η m subscript 𝜂 𝑚 \displaystyle\eta_{m} italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
= − 1 2 ∑ i , j N c χ i j ϕ i ( m ) ϕ j ( m ) + ∑ i N c w i ( m ) ϕ i ( m ) − ξ m ( ∑ i N c ϕ i ( m ) − 1 ) − ∑ i ϕ i ( m ) absent 1 2 superscript subscript 𝑖 𝑗
subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 subscript 𝜉 𝑚 superscript subscript 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 1 subscript 𝑖 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i,j}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\chi_{ij}\phi_{i}^{(m)}%
\phi_{j}^{(m)}+\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}w_{i}^{(m)}\phi_{i}^{(m)}-\xi_{m}%
\biggl{(}\sum_{i}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\phi_{i}^{(m)}-1\biggr{)}-\sum_{i}\phi_{i}^{%
(m)} = - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ξ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 ) - ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
(A23d)
η ¯ ¯ 𝜂 \displaystyle\bar{\eta} over¯ start_ARG italic_η end_ARG
= ∑ m M η m J m absent superscript subscript 𝑚 𝑀 subscript 𝜂 𝑚 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 \displaystyle=\sum_{m}^{M}\eta_{m}J_{m} = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_M end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_η start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
(A23e)
w i ( m ) ∗ superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚
\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)*} italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= ∑ j N c χ i j ϕ j ( m ) + ξ ( m ) absent superscript subscript 𝑗 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 superscript subscript italic-ϕ 𝑗 𝑚 superscript 𝜉 𝑚 \displaystyle=\sum_{j}^{N_{\mathrm{c}}}\chi_{ij}\phi_{j}^{(m)}+\xi^{(m)} = ∑ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_ξ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
(A23f)
J m ∗ superscript subscript 𝐽 𝑚 \displaystyle J_{m}^{*} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= J ( m ) + η ( m ) − η ¯ , absent superscript 𝐽 𝑚 superscript 𝜂 𝑚 ¯ 𝜂 \displaystyle=J^{(m)}+\eta^{(m)}-\bar{\eta}, = italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_η start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - over¯ start_ARG italic_η end_ARG ,
(A23g)
where the asterisk denotes the output of the iteration.
In order to improve numerical stability, we adopt the simple mixing strategy,
w i ( m ) , new superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 new
\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m),\mathrm{new}} italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) , roman_new end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= w i ( m ) + α ( w i ( m ) ∗ − w i ( m ) ) absent superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 𝛼 superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚
superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 𝑚 \displaystyle=w_{i}^{(m)}+\alpha\left(w_{i}^{(m)*}-w_{i}^{(m)}\right) = italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_α ( italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT )
(A24a)
J ( m ) , new superscript 𝐽 𝑚 new
\displaystyle J^{(m),\mathrm{new}} italic_J start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) , roman_new end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT
= J m ∗ + β ( J m ∗ − J m ) . absent superscript subscript 𝐽 𝑚 𝛽 superscript subscript 𝐽 𝑚 subscript 𝐽 𝑚 \displaystyle=J_{m}^{*}+\beta\left(J_{m}^{*}-J_{m}\right). = italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_β ( italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∗ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
(A24b)
Here α 𝛼 \alpha italic_α and β 𝛽 \beta italic_β are two empirical constants, which are usually chosen near 10 − 3 superscript 10 3 10^{-3} 10 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .
We note again that in such iteration scheme the problem of negative volume fractions is relieved.
However, there is no guarantee that J m subscript 𝐽 𝑚 J_{m} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is always positive.
Although the algorithm does not suffer from negative J m subscript 𝐽 𝑚 J_{m} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , negative J m subscript 𝐽 𝑚 J_{m} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT implies that the system might be outside of the allowed region on the tie hyperplane.
To alleviate this, we always use β 𝛽 \beta italic_β smaller than α 𝛼 \alpha italic_α , and adopt a killing-and-revive strategy to correct the worst cases:
Once J m subscript 𝐽 𝑚 J_{m} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is found to be negative at certain m 𝑚 m italic_m , e.g. m 0 subscript 𝑚 0 m_{0} italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , the corresponding compartment is considered “dead” and is going to be revived by resetting J m 0 subscript 𝐽 subscript 𝑚 0 J_{m_{0}} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to its initial value.
Concomitantly, J m subscript 𝐽 𝑚 J_{m} italic_J start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will be renormalized while the corresponding w i ( m 0 ) superscript subscript 𝑤 𝑖 subscript 𝑚 0 w_{i}^{(m_{0})} italic_w start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT will be redrawn from random distributions.
The same scheme is used to initialize the simulation, i.e., all compartments are considered “dead” at the beginning of the simulation.
This algorithm does not guarantee that the true equilibrium state is always found.
We handle this problem by launching many more compartments than the number of components, M ≫ N c much-greater-than 𝑀 subscript 𝑁 c M\gg{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_M ≫ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
In all our numerical results, the number of compartments are at least M = 16 N c 𝑀 16 subscript 𝑁 c M=16{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_M = 16 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
We justified this choice by increasing number of compartments until both the number and the compositions of unique coexisting states do not change.
Under such setting, the equilibrium coexisting states are prominently obtained.
Appendix E Control parameters for average phase count with random interactions
In the main text, we showed that with identical interactions, the control parameters and the asymptotic rules for both average number of unstable modes N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and average number of coexisting phases N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be obtained analytically.
In contrast, for random interactions with zero mean, random matrix theories only grants us access to the control parameter for N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , but it does not directly reveal anything about N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
To infer the control parameter for N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we exploit connections between the results from the other three known cases.
For simplicity, we assume vanishing mean value of the random interactions in this section, unless specified otherwise.
To predict the scaling of N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we first recall the results for N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for random interactions.
Ignoring the sole outlier in the spectrum of the Hessian matrix given by Eq. (A1 ), the average number of negative eigenvalues is approximately the number of eigenvalues of the interaction matrix χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT smaller than − 1 / ϕ i = − N c 1 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝑁 c -1/\phi_{i}=-{N_{\mathrm{c}}} - 1 / italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , when ϕ i = 1 / N c subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝑁 c \phi_{i}=1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
It has been shown that although in the case of asymmetric composition the eigenvalue spectrum will be expanded, but in the limit of larger interaction variance, the shape of the spectrum is dominated by the random interaction matrix[24 ] .
In addition, since we focus on the average behavior over the entire phase diagram, we expect such spectrum expansion has no preference for positive or negative values.
Therefore, to find the control parameters, we check the situation of symmetric composition and suppose the result generalizes to the average behavior over the entire phase diagram.
Denoting the eigenvalues of χ i j subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 \chi_{ij} italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by λ k subscript 𝜆 𝑘 \lambda_{k} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with k = 1 , 2 … N c − 1 𝑘 1 2 … subscript 𝑁 c 1
k=1,2\ldots{N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1 italic_k = 1 , 2 … italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 , then N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT can be roughly estimated by
N ¯ u ≈ E N c [ λ i < − 1 / ϕ i ] = E N c [ ϕ i > 1 / ( − λ k ) ] for χ i j ∼ 𝒩 ( 0 , σ χ ) . formulae-sequence subscript ¯ 𝑁 u subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript 𝜆 𝑖 1 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑘 similar-to for subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗
𝒩 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \displaystyle{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}\approx E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[\lambda_{i}<-1%
/\phi_{i}]=E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[\phi_{i}>1/(-\lambda_{k})]\quad\text{for}\quad%
\chi_{ij}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,{\sigma_{\chi}})\;. over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < - 1 / italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 / ( - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] for italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N ( 0 , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
(A25)
Since λ k subscript 𝜆 𝑘 \lambda_{k} italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is distributed according to a semicircle law with radius 2 σ χ N c 2 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 2{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , we set λ k = 2 σ χ N c γ subscript 𝜆 𝑘 2 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 𝛾 \lambda_{k}=2{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\gamma italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_γ , where γ 𝛾 \gamma italic_γ is a random variable according to a semicircle law with unit radius.
We thus obtain N ¯ u ≈ E N c [ 2 σ χ N c γ < − 1 / ϕ i ] = E N c [ − γ > N c / σ χ ] subscript ¯ 𝑁 u subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] 2 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 𝛾 1 subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] 𝛾 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}\approx E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[2{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{%
\mathrm{c}}}}\gamma<-1/\phi_{i}]=E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[-\gamma>\sqrt{{N_{%
\mathrm{c}}}}/{\sigma_{\chi}}] over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_γ < - 1 / italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ - italic_γ > square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG / italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] , indicating that N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is governed by the control parameter σ χ / N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\sigma_{\chi}}/\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG when χ i j ∼ 𝒩 ( 0 , σ χ ) similar-to subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 𝒩 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \chi_{ij}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,{\sigma_{\chi}}) italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N ( 0 , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
However, even though this derivation is only approximative, the literature [24 ] and our numerical data shown in Fig. 3 (a) of the main text suggest that the control parameter is still valid when N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is obtained for a uniform average over the entire phase diagram.
Although Eq. (A25 ) provides no direct information about N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , it strikingly shares the same form as the relations for N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for identical interactions χ i j ∼ 𝒩 ( χ ¯ , 0 ) similar-to subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 𝒩 ¯ 𝜒 0 \chi_{ij}\sim\mathcal{N}({\bar{\chi}},0) italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , 0 ) , allowing us to build a connection with N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by analogy.
From Eq. (7 ) and Eq. (9 ) in the main text, we obtain
N ¯ u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u \displaystyle{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
≈ E N c [ ϕ i > 1 / χ ¯ ] = E N c [ ϕ i > 1 / ( − λ k ) ] for χ i j ∼ 𝒩 ( χ ¯ , 0 ) formulae-sequence absent subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑘 similar-to for subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗
𝒩 ¯ 𝜒 0 \displaystyle\approx E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[\phi_{i}>1/{\bar{\chi}}]=E_{{N_{%
\mathrm{c}}}}[\phi_{i}>1/(-\lambda_{k})]\quad\text{for}\quad\chi_{ij}\sim%
\mathcal{N}({\bar{\chi}},0) ≈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 / over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ] = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 / ( - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] for italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , 0 )
(A26a)
N ¯ p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p \displaystyle{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT
≈ E N c [ ϕ i > 1 / exp ( χ ¯ ) ] = E N c [ ϕ i > 1 / exp ( − λ k ) ] for χ i j ∼ 𝒩 ( χ ¯ , 0 ) , formulae-sequence absent subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑘 similar-to for subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗
𝒩 ¯ 𝜒 0 \displaystyle\approx E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[\phi_{i}>1/\exp({\bar{\chi}})]=E_{{N%
_{\mathrm{c}}}}[\phi_{i}>1/\exp(-\lambda_{k})]\quad\text{for}\quad\chi_{ij}%
\sim\mathcal{N}({\bar{\chi}},0)\;, ≈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 / roman_exp ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ) ] = italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 / roman_exp ( - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] for italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N ( over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG , 0 ) ,
(A26b)
since in the case of identical interactions the relevant eigenvalues are all equal to − χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 -{\bar{\chi}} - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG .
The only difference between the unstable modes and the phase count in the equations above is that the negative eigenvalue − λ k subscript 𝜆 𝑘 -\lambda_{k} - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is modified to exp ( − λ k ) subscript 𝜆 𝑘 \exp(-\lambda_{k}) roman_exp ( - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
Inspired by this, we speculate that such a modification can also be applied to the case of random interactions χ i j ≈ 𝒩 ( 0 , σ χ ) subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 𝒩 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \chi_{ij}\approx\mathcal{N}(0,{\sigma_{\chi}}) italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ caligraphic_N ( 0 , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
We thus propose
N ¯ p ≈ E N c [ ϕ i > 1 / exp ( − λ k ) ] for χ i j ∼ 𝒩 ( 0 , σ χ ) . formulae-sequence subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 1 subscript 𝜆 𝑘 for
similar-to subscript 𝜒 𝑖 𝑗 𝒩 0 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 \displaystyle{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}\approx E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[\phi_{i}>1/%
\exp(-\lambda_{k})]\quad\text{for}\quad\chi_{ij}\sim\mathcal{N}(0,{\sigma_{%
\chi}})\;. over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 1 / roman_exp ( - italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ] for italic_χ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ caligraphic_N ( 0 , italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .
(A27)
Since λ k = 2 σ χ N c γ subscript 𝜆 𝑘 2 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 𝛾 \lambda_{k}=2{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\gamma italic_λ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_γ , and the average value of ϕ i subscript italic-ϕ 𝑖 \phi_{i} italic_ϕ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is 1 / N c 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we further propose that N ¯ p ≈ E N c [ − ln N c < − 2 σ χ N c γ ] subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝐸 subscript 𝑁 c delimited-[] subscript 𝑁 c 2 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 𝛾 {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}\approx E_{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}[-\ln{N_{\mathrm{c}}}<-2{%
\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}\gamma] over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≈ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT [ - roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < - 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG italic_γ ] . leading to the control parameter σ χ N c / ln N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c {\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}/\ln{N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG / roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , which we verify numerically in the main text.
Appendix F Deviation of the numerically estimated master functions
To confirm the scalings proposed in Eq. (10 ) in the main text, and the associated master functions shown in Fig. 4 , we calculate the relative standard deviations across the selected number of components.
Fig. A2 a shows that the deviation between the true values of ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the values predicted by the master function g u subscript 𝑔 u g_{\mathrm{u}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is below 5 % percent 5 5\% 5 % in the relevant parameter regime of repulsive interactions (χ ¯ > 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}>0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG > 0 ).
Fig. A2 b shows that the deviation is even smaller for the phase count N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , showing that it is incredibly well explained by the master function g p subscript 𝑔 p g_{\mathrm{p}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for positive χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG .
In both datasets, the relative deviation is higher in the lower left corner of the plot (χ ¯ < 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}<0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG < 0 and small σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ).
This is expected since most cases exhibit a homogeneous system, so the number of unstable modes is close to 0 0 , while number of coexisting phases is close to 1 1 1 1 .
In these cases, the relative standard deviation degenerates to the standard deviation of the 1 / N c 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , which is apparently high with respect to 1 / N c 1 subscript 𝑁 c 1/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} 1 / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT itself.
Figure A2:
Relative standard deviation of the numerically estimated master functions for N c ∈ [ 16 , 32 ] subscript 𝑁 c 16 32 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}\in[16,32] italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ [ 16 , 32 ] .
(a) Relative standard deviation of number of unstable modes, σ N ¯ u / N ¯ u subscript 𝜎 subscript ¯ 𝑁 u subscript ¯ 𝑁 u \sigma_{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}}/{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , and (b) relative standard deviation of number of coexisting phases, σ N ¯ p / N ¯ p subscript 𝜎 subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript ¯ 𝑁 p \sigma_{{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}}/{\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , as a function of two scaling variables (a) χ ¯ / N c ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and σ χ / N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\sigma_{\chi}}/\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , and (b) χ ¯ − ln ( N c − 1 ) ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 {\bar{\chi}}-\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) and σ χ N c / ln N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c {\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}/\ln{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG / roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , respectively.
Standard deviations are calculated for N c = 16 , 20 , 24 , 28 , 32 subscript 𝑁 c 16 20 24 28 32
{N_{\mathrm{c}}}=16,20,24,28,32 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 16 , 20 , 24 , 28 , 32 .
To validate our result further, we repeat the same procedure for determining the master functions using half the component count N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT everywhere.
The respective deviations are very similar (compare Fig. A2 and Fig. A4 ), and comparing
Fig. A3 of the main text to Fig. 4 shows that the resulting master functions are very similar.
Taken together, this suggests that the master functions shown in Fig. A3 are reliable.
Figure A3:
Numerically estimated master functions for N c ∈ [ 8 , 16 ] subscript 𝑁 c 8 16 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}\in[8,16] italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ [ 8 , 16 ] .
Data are averaged over N c = 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 16 subscript 𝑁 c 8 10 12 14 16
{N_{\mathrm{c}}}=8,10,12,14,16 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 16 .
300-3000 random pairs of interaction matrices and compositions are drawn for each fixed N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Other elements are the same as Fig. 4 in the main text.
Figure A4:
Relative standard deviation of the numerically estimated of master functions for N c ∈ [ 8 , 16 ] subscript 𝑁 c 8 16 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}\in[8,16] italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ [ 8 , 16 ] .
Standard deviations are calculated for N c = 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 16 subscript 𝑁 c 8 10 12 14 16
{N_{\mathrm{c}}}=8,10,12,14,16 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 8 , 10 , 12 , 14 , 16 .
300-3000 samples of random interaction matrices and compositions are drawn for each fixed N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG and σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Other elements are the same as Fig. A2 .
Appendix G Linear regime of average unstable modes/coexisting phases count with respect to mean interaction
The master functions g u subscript 𝑔 u g_{\mathrm{u}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and g p subscript 𝑔 p g_{\mathrm{p}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT shown in Fig. A3 in the main text were only estimated numerically.
However, their smooth behavior in the region of large σ χ subscript 𝜎 𝜒 {\sigma_{\chi}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and small χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG suggests that there is a simpler relationship in this region.
To obtain such a relationship, we investigate deviations from the line χ ¯ = 0 ¯ 𝜒 0 {\bar{\chi}}=0 over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG = 0 for small | χ ¯ | ¯ 𝜒 |{\bar{\chi}}| | over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG | .
For the unstable modes, ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , such relationship can be inferred again from random matrix theory.
The eigenvalues of the random interaction matrix are distributed according to the semicircle law with radius r = 2 σ χ N c 𝑟 2 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c r=2{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_r = 2 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .
Adding a mean value χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG shifts the distribution by − χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 -{\bar{\chi}} - over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG accordingly.
Therefore, the normalized number of unstable modes will increase roughly by 2 r χ ¯ / ( π r 2 ) = χ ¯ / ( π σ χ N c ) 2 𝑟 ¯ 𝜒 𝜋 superscript 𝑟 2 ¯ 𝜒 𝜋 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 2r{\bar{\chi}}/(\pi r^{2})={\bar{\chi}}/(\pi{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c%
}}}}) 2 italic_r over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / ( italic_π italic_r start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / ( italic_π italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) when χ ¯ ≪ σ χ N c much-less-than ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}\ll{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG ≪ italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , so χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG leads to a linear correction of ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Fig. A5 shows that such a shift collapses the data for various χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG .
Note that the shift χ ¯ / ( π σ χ N c ) ¯ 𝜒 𝜋 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}/(\pi{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}) over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / ( italic_π italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) can be interpreted as the ratio between the control parameter for ( N ¯ u + 1 ) / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 u 1 subscript 𝑁 c ({\bar{N}_{\mathrm{u}}}+1)/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} ( over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 1 ) / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in the identical interaction case, χ ¯ / N c ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , and that in the zero-mean random interaction case, σ χ / N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\sigma_{\chi}}/\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .
We speculate that a similar linear relationship with respect to χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG holds for the phase count N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
By comparing the control parameters χ ¯ − ln ( N c − 1 ) ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1 {\bar{\chi}}-\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}}-1) over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG - roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ) and σ χ N c / ln N c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c {\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}/\ln{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG / roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , we conclude that the shift is proportional to χ ¯ ln ( N c ) / ( σ χ N c ) ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{\chi}}\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}})/({\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}) over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) .
We also include a fitting parameter λ 𝜆 \lambda italic_λ since we have little knowledge of the analytical form of g p subscript 𝑔 p g_{\mathrm{p}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , in contrast to g u subscript 𝑔 u g_{\mathrm{u}} italic_g start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
Fig. A6 a shows that shifting the N ¯ p / N c subscript ¯ 𝑁 p subscript 𝑁 c {\bar{N}_{\mathrm{p}}}/{N_{\mathrm{c}}} over¯ start_ARG italic_N end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT data according to λ χ ¯ ln ( N c ) / ( σ χ N c ) 𝜆 ¯ 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c \lambda{\bar{\chi}}\ln({N_{\mathrm{c}}})/({\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}%
}}) italic_λ over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG roman_ln ( italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / ( italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) collapses the data for various χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG over a broad range.
The fitting parameter is chosen to be 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 , independent of N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (Fig. A6 b).
Note that these two linear relationships indicate that in the large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT limit, the influences of mean interaction χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG is subtle, since both 1 / ( π σ χ N c ) 1 𝜋 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c 1/(\pi{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}) 1 / ( italic_π italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) and ln N c / N c subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝑁 c \ln{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}}/\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG are vanishingly small with large N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , consistent with Fig. 4 .
Figure A5:
Linear correction proportional to χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG collapses data of the number of unstable modes.
(a) Shifted normalized average number of unstable modes (orange-purple) and coexisting phases (green-blue) as a function of the scaled standard deviation of the interactions for various mean interactions χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG at fixed component count N c = 16 subscript 𝑁 c 16 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}=16 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 16 . The shift coefficient k = 1 / π σ χ N c 𝑘 1 𝜋 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c k=1/\pi{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_k = 1 / italic_π italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG .
(b) Changes in the normalized average number of unstable modes (orange-purple) and coexisting phases (green-blue) as a function of the scaled mean interactions for various component counts N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at fixed standard deviation of the interactions, σ χ = 10 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 10 {\sigma_{\chi}}=10 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 .
Figure A6:
Linear correction proportional to χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG collapses data of the number of coexisting phases.
(a) Shifted normalized average number of unstable modes (orange-purple) and coexisting phases (green-blue) as a function of the scaled standard deviation of the interactions for various mean interactions χ ¯ ¯ 𝜒 {\bar{\chi}} over¯ start_ARG italic_χ end_ARG at fixed component count N c = 16 subscript 𝑁 c 16 {N_{\mathrm{c}}}=16 italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 16 . The shift coefficient k = λ ln N c / σ χ N c 𝑘 𝜆 subscript 𝑁 c subscript 𝜎 𝜒 subscript 𝑁 c k=\lambda\ln{N_{\mathrm{c}}}/{\sigma_{\chi}}\sqrt{{N_{\mathrm{c}}}} italic_k = italic_λ roman_ln italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT square-root start_ARG italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG , where λ 𝜆 \lambda italic_λ is a fitting constant independent of N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT .
(b) Changes in the normalized average number of unstable modes (orange-purple) and coexisting phases (green-blue) as a function of the scaled mean interactions for various component counts N c subscript 𝑁 c {N_{\mathrm{c}}} italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT at fixed standard deviation of the interactions, σ χ = 10 subscript 𝜎 𝜒 10 {\sigma_{\chi}}=10 italic_σ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_χ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 10 .