in 1957 , jaynes @xcite showed that maximizing statistical mechanic entropy for the purpose of revealing how gas molecules were distributed was simply the maximizing of the shannon information entropy @xcite with statistical mechanical information .
this idea lead to maxent or his use of the method of maximum entropy for assigning probabilities .
this method has recently evolved to a more general method , the method of maximum relative entropy ( mre ) @xcite which has the advantage of not only assigning probabilities but _ updating _ them when new information is given in the form of constraints on the family of allowed posteriors .
one of the drawbacks of the maxent method was the inability to include data . when data was present , one used bayesian methods .
the methods were combined in such a way that maxent was used for assigning a prior for bayesian methods , as bayesian methods could not deal with information in the form of constraints , such as expected values .
previously it has been shown that one can use the mre method to reproduce a mean field solution for a simple fluid @xcite .
the purpose of this was to illustrate that in addition to updating probabilities , mre can also be used for _ approximating _ probability distributions as an approximation tool .    in a simple ferromagnetic material ( that is , a ferromagnetic material with a single domain ) , the electronic spins of the individual atoms are strong enough to affect one and other , and give rise to the so called exchange interaction @xcite .
this effect , however , is temperature dependent .
when the temperature is below a certain point ( the curie or critical temperature ) the spins tend to all point in the same direction due to their influence on each other .
this establishes a permanent magnet as the individual atoms produce a net dipole effect . above this temperature ,
the atoms cease to have a significant effect on each other and the material behaves more like a paramagnetic substance . determining this net dipole effect can be difficult .
first , the interactions are due to complicated quantum effects .
second , since a given material has a very large number of atoms , computing the net dipole effect can be difficult in two dimensions and completely intractable in three dimensions .
therefore , approximations such as using an ising model @xcite and/or the mean field approximation @xcite are made to facilitate computation .
applications of the mre ( updating ) method together with information geometric methods used to characterize the complexity of dynamical systems described in terms of probabilistic tools are quite extensive @xcite . in ref .
@xcite , using the mre method together with differential geometric techniques , we proposed an information - geometric characterization of chaotic energy level statistics of a quantum antiferromagnetic ising spin chain in a tilted magnetic field . in ref .
@xcite , employing the very same aforementioned techniques , we were able to establish a connection between the behavior of the information - geometric complexity of a trivariate gaussian statistical model and the geometric frustration phenomena that appears in triangular ising models @xcite .
however , the purpose of our article is to illustrate the use of the mre ( approximating ) method as a tool for attaining approximations for ferromagnetic materials that lie outside the ability of traditional methods . in doing so , we further the previous work done and show the versatility of the method .
the layout of the remaining part of this manuscript is as follows . in section
ii , we briefly outline the essential steps of the mre method in updating and approximating probability distributions . in section iii
, we describe the basics of the ising model and mean field theory as approximate mathematical descriptions of ferromagnetic materials . in section iv
, we compare magnetization properties of ferromagnets inferred by means of mre with those obtained via the ising model together with mean field theory . in section
v , we further test the effectiveness of the mre methodology by considering ferromagnetic material in the presence of defects .
our final remarks appear in section vi .
in this section , we outline the essential elements of the mre method as a technique for updating and/or approximating probability distributions .
the mre method is a technique for updating probabilities when new information is provided in the form of a constraint on the family of the allowed posteriors .
the main feature of the mre method is the possibility of updating probabilities in the presence of both data and expected value constraints .
this feature was first formally presented in @xcite where , in particular , it was shown that bayes updating can be regarded as a special case of the mre method .  a first semi - quantitative analysis of the effective advantages of this powerful feature of the mre method appeared in @xcite .
finally , the first fully quantitative investigation of the advantages of the mre method was carried out in @xcite where two toy problems were solved in detail .
following these lines of investigation , we present here a novel application of the mre method to a real - world ferromagnetic problem .
we use the mre method to update from a prior to a posterior probability distribution .
specifically , we want to make inferences on some quantity @xmath0 given :    i ) : :    the prior information about @xmath1 ( the prior ) ; ii ) : :    the known relationship between @xmath2 and    @xmath3 ( the model ) ; iii ) : :    the observed values of the variables ( data )    @xmath2 .
the search space for the posterior probability distribution occurs in the product space @xmath4 , and the joint distribution is denoted as @xmath5 .
the key idea is going from the old prior @xmath6 to the updated prior @xmath7,@xmath8 the joint probability @xmath9 maximizes the relative entropy functional @xmath10   $ ] , @xmath11   \overset{\text{def}}{=}-\int ddd\theta p\left (   d\text { , } \theta\right )   \log\left [ \frac{p\left (   d\text { , } \theta\right )   } { p_{\text{old}}\left (   d\text { , } \theta\right )   } \right ]   \text { , } \label{ef}\ ] ] subject to the given information constraints .
note that @xmath12,@xmath13 is called here the joint prior , while @xmath6 and @xmath14 denote the standard bayesian prior and the likelihood , respectively .
we emphasize that both the joint prior and the standard bayesian prior encode prior information about @xmath0 . furthermore ,
despite the fact that the likelihood is not regarded as prior information in the conventional sense , it will be considered here as prior information since it represents the a priori established relation between @xmath0 and @xmath2 .
let us specify now the relevant information constraints .
first , we impose the standard normalization constraint,@xmath15 second , we consider an information constraint in the form of expected value of some smooth function @xmath16,@xmath17 finally , we consider the observed data @xmath18 . within the mre method , knowledge of this information
leads to an infinite number of constraints,@xmath19 for any @xmath2 where @xmath20 denotes the dirac delta function . using the lagrange multipliers technique , we maximize the logarithmic relative entropy functional in eq .
( [ ef ] ) subject to the constraints in eqs .
( [ c1 ] ) , ( [ c2 ] ) , and ( [ c3 ] ) .
we impose that the variation with respect to @xmath21 of the entropy functional @xmath10   $ ] is equal to zero,@xmath22{c}s\left [   p\left\vert p_{\text{old}}\right .
\right ]   + \alpha\left [   \int ddd\theta p\left (   d\text { , } \theta\right )   -1\right ] \\ + \beta\left [   \int ddd\theta g\left (   \theta\right )   p\left (   d\text { , } \theta\right )   -g\right ] \\ + \int dd\gamma\left (   d\right )   \left [   \int d\theta p\left (   d\text { , } \theta\right )   -\delta\left (   d - d^{\prime}\right )   \right ] \end{array } \right\ }   = 0\text{. } \label{var}\ ] ] we note that eq . ( [ c3 ] ) describes the information in the data and represents an infinite number of constraints on the family @xmath23 . for this reason
, there exist one constraint and one lagrange multiplier @xmath24 for each value of @xmath25 . after some simple algebra of variations , eq .
( [ var ] ) becomes@xmath26   \delta p\left (   d\text { , } \theta\right )   = 0\text { , } \label{get}\ ] ] for any @xmath27 . therefore , from eq .
( [ get ] ) we find@xmath28 where the lagrange multipliers @xmath29 , @xmath30 , and @xmath31 can be formally determined by substituting eq .
( [ newp ] ) into eqs .
( [ c1 ] ) , ( [ c2 ] ) and ( [ c3 ] ) , respectively . after some algebra , we obtain@xmath32 observe that the lagrange multiplier @xmath30 in eq .
( [ pnew ] ) can only be implicitly determined and depends on the observed data @xmath18 . finally ,
marginalizing @xmath9 over the variable @xmath25 , we obtain the updated prior probability distribution@xmath33 for the sake of notational simplicity , define@xmath34 finally , eq . ( [ gg ] ) becomes@xmath35 note that in the absence of constraints in the form of expected values , @xmath36 and eq .
( [ ggg ] ) reduces to the standard bayes updating relation@xmath37 for the sake of completeness , we point out that eq .
( [ bb ] ) can be obtained by combining bayes theorem,@xmath38 and bayes rule,@xmath39 in what follows , we shall regard the mre method as a tool for approximating probability distributions .      for the sake of reasoning
, assume that the microstates of a system are labeled by coordinates @xmath40 .
furthermore , assume that the probability that the system is in a microstate within a given range @xmath41 is described by the canonical distribution @xcite,@xmath42 where the function @xmath43 is defined as,@xmath44 in statistical mechanical terms , the quantity @xmath45 in eq . (
[ ppp ] ) denotes the helmholtz free energy . in general , to describe a system in terms of its observables , one needs to compute expected values in terms of integrals over @xmath21 which , in turn , depends on the hamiltonian @xmath46 .
calculating these integrals can be quite challenging especially when the hamiltonian exhibits nonlinear interaction terms . to make things more tractable , one can think of replacing the exact expression of @xmath21 with an approximate expression @xmath47 provided that the latter preserves the relevant information content essential for our specific inferences .
more specifically , @xmath47 can be identified in two steps .
first , identify a suitable family of trial distributions @xmath48 relevant for our specific problem at hand .
second , select @xmath47 from @xmath49 .
there is no recipe for the first step .
the second step is mechanical .
the distribution to be selected is the one that maximizes the entropy of @xmath50 relative to @xmath21,@xmath51   = -\int dxp_{a}\left (   x\right ) \log\left [   \frac{p_{a}\left (   x\right )   } { p\left (   x\right )   } \right ] \text{. } \label{re}\ ] ] a very convenient family of trial distributions is given by the canonical distributions with a modified hamiltonian @xmath52 where @xmath53 are parameters that label each distribution within a family,@xmath54 where the @xmath55 function is given by,@xmath56 we underline that in sec .
ii , the symbol @xmath1 is used to denote one parameter or many parameters about which one wishes to make inferences . here , as mentioned earlier , the parameters @xmath53 are used to label a family of trial distributions that are canonical with the hamiltonian * * @xmath57 . substituting eqs . ( [ p ] ) , ( [ ppp ] ) , ( [ pp ] ) , and ( [ ppz ] ) into eq .
( [ re ] ) , we get@xmath58   = \beta\left (   f - f_{0}\right ) + \beta\left\langle \mathcal{h}_{0}-\mathcal{h}\right\rangle _ { 0}\text { , } \label{sp}\ ] ] where,@xmath59 note that the symbol * * @xmath60 * * in eq .
( [ sp ] ) denotes the average over the trial distribution * * @xmath61 * * and the subscript * * @xmath62 * * is simply used to recall that * * @xmath61 is canonical with the modified hamiltonian * * @xmath57 .
since @xmath63   \leq0 $ ] , eq .
( [ sp ] ) implies@xmath64 loosely speaking , maximizing @xmath65 is equivalent to minimizing @xmath66 .
this latter minimization procedure is also known as the bogoliubov variational principle @xcite which , as shown here , can be regarded as a special case of the mre method .
[ c]|c|c|c|ferromagnet & symbol & critical  temperature + iron & fe & 1043 + cobalt & co & 1388 + nickel & ni & 627 + gadolinium & gd & 293 + dysprosium & dy & 85 +
one of the most interesting phenomena in solid state physics is represented by ferromagnetism @xcite . in spite of the extensive oversimplifications required to construct a tractable mathematical model describing such a phenomena , calculations concerning ferromagnetism are among the most impressive exhibition of brute force computation achieved by theoretical physicists @xcite . in what follows
, we shall outline the basics of the so - called ising model of ferromagnetic materials @xcite .
a few ferromagnetic materials together with their corresponding critical temperatures are listed in table i.      one of the simplest systems that exhibits a transition from ordered to disordered states is that of a lattice composed of two different types of objects , @xmath67 and @xmath68 .
assume that the objects interact with only their nearest neighbors .
if one raises the temperature @xmath69 of the system at some critical point @xmath70 , the system will melt and become completely disordered . a relatively simple mathematical model of such a system was developed by ernst ising to describe ferromagnetism @xcite .
the general expression for the ising hamiltonian is given by @xcite,@xmath71 where @xmath72 is the spin variable , @xmath73 is the cardinality of the spin variables , @xmath74 determines the spin configuration of the whole system , the symbol @xmath75 with @xmath76 denotes a pair of next neighbor spins , @xmath77 are the exchange coupling constants , and @xmath68 is the @xmath78-component of a uniform external magnetic field .
ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic materials are characterized by exchange coupling coefficients with @xmath79 and @xmath80 , respectively , for all pairs @xmath81 , @xmath82 .
for instance , iron ( fe ) and iron oxide ( feo ) are examples of ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic materials , respectively .
their critical temperature is given by @xmath83 and @xmath84 @xcite , respectively .
for the sake of reasoning , we shall assume in what follows that @xmath85 ( zero external magnetic field ) and @xmath86 for all pairs @xmath81 , @xmath82 ( isotropic interaction strength ) .
the hamiltonian in eq .
( [ ham ] ) becomes,@xmath87 the sum over @xmath88 in eq .
( [ ham2 ] ) contains @xmath89 terms where @xmath90 is the number of next nearest neighbors of each lattice site and depends on the specific type of lattice structure being considered .
for instance , for a two - dimensional square lattice , @xmath91 . the partition function @xmath92 corresponding to the hamiltonian in eq .
( [ ham2 ] ) is the sum of @xmath93 terms and is given by @xcite,@xmath94 where @xmath95 , with @xmath96 denoting the boltzmann constant . as a side remark
, we recall that the thermodynamic functions ( internal energy and thermal capacity , for instance ) can be obtained in the usual manner from the helmholtz free energy * * @xmath97 @xcite,@xmath98        in the two - dimensional case with only nearest neighbor interactions and simple lattice configurations ( square and triangular , for instance ) , the exact free energy is known in the hypothesis of zero magnetic field @xcite . for the one dimensional case , the partition function @xmath99
can easily be calculated , @xmath100   ^{n-1}\overset{n\gg1}{\approx}\left [   2\cosh\left (   \beta j\right ) \right ]   ^{n}\text{. } \label{partition2}\ ] ] furthermore , the resulting average energy @xmath101 for @xmath102 would then be , @xmath103 where @xmath104 denotes the hyperbolic tangent function . for the sake of clarity , a rectangular two - dimensional ising model
is depicted in fig . 1
.      one of the most important starting points for more sophisticated calculations concerning ferromagnetic transitions is furnished by the so - called mean field theory ( or , molecular field theory @xcite ) .
the mean field approximation for the ising model assumes that each and every spin is subject to a mean field generated by its next nearest neighbors only @xcite .
such an approximation turns out to be especially important for three dimensional materials where each atom may have @xmath105 , @xmath106 or even @xmath107 close neighbors depending on the crystal geometry @xcite .
we start with the same energy function as given in eq .
( [ ham2 ] ) but now examine only one atom ( sometimes called the _ central _ atom ) , @xmath108 where @xmath109 is the energy ascribed to one atom and @xmath110 is the number of nearest neighbors ( for instance , a face - centered cubic lattice would have @xmath111 ) with atoms at the edge of the material neglected . assuming that each neighbor contributes equally and averaging over the neighbor spins around this one atom
, we obtain @xmath112 where,@xmath113 with @xmath114 .
the boltzmann probability @xmath115 of finding this atom in the @xmath116 state is given by , @xmath117 and the partition function @xmath118 becomes , @xmath119 taking the average of @xmath116 for this one atom over its two possible states , using eqs .
( [ 1 ] ) and ( [ 2 ] ) , the mean magnetization becomes @xmath120   = \frac{2\sinh\left (   \beta jn\bar{s}_{j}\right )   } { 2\cosh\left (   \beta jn\bar{s}_{j}\right )   } = \tanh\left (   \beta jn\bar{s}_{j}\right )   ~\text{. } \label{expected_m}\ ] ] furthermore , assuming that _ all _ atoms will behave like this one labeled with the @xmath81 index and assuming that the average spin @xmath121 for the entire ferromagnetic material is formally defined as , @xmath122 from eqs .
( [ expected_m ] ) and ( [ as ] ) , we find @xmath123     vs. temperature @xmath69 in case of the mean field approximation applied to the ising model .
we set @xmath124 and assume @xmath125 , @xmath126 , and the level curves @xmath127 with @xmath128,scaledwidth=50.0% ]    observe that the inner and outer expectation values in the nested expectation value in eq .
( [ as ] ) used to define the average spin @xmath121 for the entire ferromagnetic material represent the averages over all possible states of an atom and over all atoms of the material , respectively . if one considers eq .
( [ ham ] ) instead of eq .
( [ ham2 ] ) , eq .
( [ avgm ] ) can be generalized and becomes @xcite,@xmath129   \text { , } \label{implicit}\ ] ] where * * @xmath68 * * denotes the intensity of the applied external magnetic field .
( [ implicit ] ) can be solved numerically in order to uncover the mean magnetization @xmath130 as a function of the temperature @xmath69 of the system . a contour plot of @xmath131 defined as,@xmath132   \text{,}\ ] ] as a function of @xmath133 and @xmath69 appears in fig .
when an external magnetic field with strength @xmath68 is applied , the effective hamiltonian @xmath134 for the @xmath81-th atom becomes,@xmath135 where * * @xmath136 * * is the magnetic moment and * * @xmath137 * * is the net effective energy on the @xmath81-th atom . as a final remark , we also point out that if one were to write the full hamiltonian with the external field instead of @xmath138 as given in eq .
( [ ham2 ] ) , then one will not have as simple of a solution for @xmath139 as in eq . ( [ partition2 ] ) , i.e. @xmath140   ^{n}$ ] .
as we have seen in the previous section , the ising model and mean field theory require various assumptions to be fulfilled .
part of the strength of using the mre is that one does not need to justify some of the assumptions .
stated otherwise , one simply supplies the information constraints that one has available and then allow the method to turn out the least biased solution based on the information given .
this can be demonstrated by using the mre method to find an appropriate approximate description of a ferromagnetic material .    following the procedure outlined in section
ii , we begin by determining the full posterior solution for a ferromagnetic atomic system where we have both an expectation value constraint as well as observed data .
for this example , the data observed will be the effect of the external magnetic field , @xmath141 on each atom .
the appropriate entropy to consider becomes , * * @xmath142=-\int d^{n}b\sum_{\left\ {   s\right\ }   } p\left\ { s , b\right\ }   \log\left [   \frac{p\left\ {   s , b\right\ }   } { p_{\text{old}}\left\ { s , b\right\ }   } \right ]   \label{h_entropy}\ ] ] where * * @xmath143**  **@xmath144 * * , * * @xmath145 * * will be a flat prior ( constant in @xmath146 and uniform in @xmath68 ) , @xmath73 denotes the number of atoms , and@xmath147 second , we consider the energy constraint in the form of the expectation value of the hamiltonian,@xmath148 where * * @xmath149 * * denotes some general hamiltonian . for illustrative purposes , we adopt as our starting point the ising model
so as to show how one can use the mre to arrive at a similar approximation as the one produced by mean field theory .
let * * @xmath149 * * in eq .
( [ h_constraint ] ) be defined as , * * @xmath150 where * * @xmath151 equals * * @xmath152 * * in eq .
( [ ham2 ] ) and * * @xmath153 * * is the energy attributed to the observed external magnetic field * * @xmath141 * * acting on the individual atoms .
next is to apply the data constraints .
as mentioned in section ii , there are an infinite number of data constraints associated with a single data point
. therefore , here we have * * @xmath73 * * sets of them , one set for each data point . for illustrative purposes , we will assume that the field is uniform and therefore the value * * @xmath154 * * for all * * @xmath81 , @xmath155 .
* * we can then simply write the data constraint as,@xmath156 along with the normalization constraint , maximizing the logarithmic relative entropy with respect to the constraints yields the canonical distribution,@xmath157 where @xmath158  @xmath159 , @xmath160 is similar to the partition function from eq .
( [ partition ] ) with the exception of the data in the hamiltonian @xmath161 which is now,@xmath162 however , in order to determine the values of quantities such as the critical temperature , the total magnetic moment and the magnetic susceptibility , we are faced with the same dilemma as above : we can not compute the solutions explicitly .
therefore , we must try to find an approximation that is computationally tractable .
we now wish to use mre to find an approximation that is tractable .
we accomplish this by first writing down the appropriate entropy functional @xmath163 $ ] , @xmath164=-\sum_{\left\ {   s\right\ }   } p_{\text{a}}\log\left [ \frac{p_{\text{a}}}{p}\right ]   \text { , } \label{entropy_me}\ ] ] where @xmath165 is the canonical probability distribution as in eq .
( [ p ] ) with @xmath166 as given in eq .
( [ hamiltonian_nf ] ) and @xmath167 is the approximation that we seek .
we proceed by rewriting the entropy functional @xmath163 $ ] as , @xmath164=-\sum_{\left\ {   s\right\ }   } p_{\text{a}}\log p_{\text{a}}+\sum_{\left\ {   s\right\ }   } p_{\text{a}}\log p\text{. } \label{sre}\ ] ] using eqs .
( [ p ] ) and ( [ hamiltonian_nf ] ) , eq .
( [ sre ] ) becomes @xmath164=\frac{1}{k_{b}}s_{\text{a}}-\sum_{\left\ {   s\right\ } } p_{\text{a}}\beta\mathcal{h}^{\prime}\left\ {   s\right\ }   + \beta f\text { , } \label{sre1}\ ] ] where we have used the fact that the partition function @xmath160 can also be written in terms of the free energy @xmath45 as @xmath168 .
( [ sre1 ] ) can further be reduced to@xmath164=\frac{1}{k_{b}}s_{\text{a}}+\beta\left (   f-\left\langle \mathcal{h}^{\prime}\left\ {   s\right\ }   \right\rangle _ { \text{a}}\right ) \text { , } \label{aa}\ ] ] where @xmath169 can be regarded as the energy @xmath170 of the system and is formally defined as,@xmath171 since by definition @xmath163\leq0 $ ] , using eqs .
( [ aa ] ) and ( [ aaa ] ) leads to @xmath172 when using the mre method , we maximize the entropy functional in order to find the best posterior given the information provided . for this specific case
, we have rewritten the entropy in terms of an inequality that compares the free energy of the system @xmath45 with the approximate values for the average energy @xmath170 and the entropy @xmath173 .
the free energy is minimized to determine the best approximation for @xmath167 .
this minimization problem is also known as the bogoliubov variational principle @xcite .
therefore , from our discussion , we conclude that this variational principle is simply a special case of the mre method . to be more general , we proceed with using the mre method to find the best approximation .
as stated earlier , when using the mre method , the goal is to search the family of possible posteriors in order to find the one that maximizes the entropy given the constraints .
in addition to this , we need a solution that is tractable .
therefore , we seek a posterior @xmath167 that has a form @xmath174 where @xmath175 is defined as , @xmath176 and @xmath177 is some effective energy similar to @xmath134 given in eq .
( [ hamiltonian_effm ] ) . for illustrative purposes , we assume that all atoms poses the same effective energy so that @xmath178 for any @xmath179 .
the difference is that we do not yet know the form of @xmath180 .
we continue by following a similar route to eq .
( [ expected_m ] ) by writing the expectation value for @xmath116 with respect to @xmath167 , @xmath181 except that here we are marginalizing over all atoms except the @xmath81-th .
notice that because the effective energy @xmath180 is constant , the solution is independent of the index @xmath81 .
next we maximize @xmath163 $ ] in  eq .
( [ entropy_me ] ) or , in keeping with the current case , we minimize the free energy @xmath45 . from eq .
( [ aa ] ) , we have @xmath182 substituting eq .
( [ pa ] ) into eq .
( [ a4 ] ) , after some algebra we get@xmath183 note that @xmath184 is a constant and can be extracted from the summation in eq .
( [ pull ] ) .
furthermore , since @xmath185 , eq . ( [ pull ] ) becomes @xmath186 or expressed otherwise,@xmath187 we now substitute the explicit expressions for the hamiltonians @xmath166 in eq .
( [ hamiltonian_nf ] ) and @xmath175 in eq .
( [ ha ] ) into the function @xmath188 in eq .
( [ fmin ] ) . after some algebra
,  we find @xmath189 noting that,@xmath190 @xmath188  becomes , @xmath191 substituting @xmath192   ^{n}$ ] into eq .
( [ fmin2 ] ) yields , @xmath193   ^{n}-j\sum_{i , j}^{n , n}\left\langle s_{i}s_{j}\right\rangle _ { \text{a}}-\mu b^{\prime}n\tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right ) \text{.}\ ] ] from eq .
( [ avga ] ) , @xmath194 and does not depend on the index @xmath81 , so that@xmath195 therefore , @xmath188 can be rewritten as @xmath196   -j\sum_{i , j}^{n , n}\left\langle s_{i}\right\rangle _ { \text{a}}\left\langle s_{j}\right\rangle _ { \text{a}}-\mu b^{\prime}n\tanh\left ( \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   ~\text{. } \label{mmm}\ ] ] substituting eq .
( [ avga ] ) into eq .
( [ mmm ] ) yields , @xmath197   -j\frac{1}{2}nn\left [   \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right ) \right ]   ^{2}-\mu b^{\prime}n\tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a~}}\right ) \text { , } \label{minimi}\ ] ] where the factor @xmath110 specifies the number of nearest neighbors , the factor @xmath73 is from the total number of atoms and the @xmath198 appears in order to take into account double counting .
we now minimize @xmath188 in eq .
( [ minimi ] ) with respect to @xmath180 , @xmath199 that is , @xmath200 after canceling terms in eq .
( [ simply ] ) , we have @xmath201 that is , @xmath202 eq .
( [ ea ] ) is our final result for this section . in fig .
2 , the numerical solution of the mean magnetization vs. temperature is reported .
we note that for @xmath203 and @xmath204**,**@xmath205 the critical temperature @xmath70 is the temperature at which spontaneous magnetization in a lattice of magnetic material begins to appear , and this is where a phase transition occurs @xcite . roughly speaking , a phase transition in a lattice is a singularity in the limit of @xmath206 as @xmath25 , the size of the lattice , approaches infinity . for the sake of completeness , we remark here
that while onsager was the first to obtain a closed - form solution to the ising two - dimensional ferromagnetic model in the absence of an external magnetic field @xcite , yang was the first to publish the exact calculation of the spontaneous magnetization for a two - dimensional ising model @xcite .
returning to fig .
2 , we note that for @xmath207 , there is only one approximating probability distribution that is uniform over all states . for @xmath208 , there are two minima that correspond to approximating distributions that are symmetry - broken , with all spins more likely to be down , or all spins more likely to be up .
furthermore , notice that if @xmath209 in eq .
( [ ea ] ) , we recover our solution using the mean field approximation above . as a matter of fact , letting @xmath210 , we rewrite eq .
( [ ea ] ) as , @xmath211 that is , we reattain eq .
( [ avgm]),@xmath212 however , from eq .
( [ ea ] )  alone we can formally solve for the critical temperature , the total magnetic moment and the magnetic susceptibility ( that is , the ratio between the magnetization of the material and the strength of the magnetic field applied to the material ) in the usual way @xcite .
this is true even though we still do not know the explicit form for @xmath180 . using this mre approach
, we did not need to assume that all atoms behave like a central atom and we did not need to know the explicit form of the effective energy @xmath180 , only that there was one .
following the mre method we simply processed all of the information that we had available . notice that we also no longer need to assume ising conditions .
we further explore such considerations in the next section .
in this section , we employ mre techniques to infer the numerical estimates of effective energy levels of atoms in two cases : i ) atoms with three possible states ; ii ) defective atoms in a crystal lattice
.      to illustrate the use of mre in determining critical temperatures , we look at the ising model with three possible states : spin up , spin down , and no spin . in this example , we will let @xmath213 where an atom in the @xmath62-state would contribute no energy .
we follow the same line of reasoning outlined in the previous section up until eq .
( [ avga ] ) where the new expected value for the @xmath81-th spin variable @xmath214 is now given by,@xmath215 after some tedious algebra , the new expression for @xmath188 becomes @xmath216 -j\frac{1}{2}nn\left [   \frac{2\sinh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right ) } { 2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1}\right ]   ^{2}-\mu b^{\prime}n\frac{2\sinh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   } { 2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1}~\text{.}\ ] ]    minimizing this function @xmath188 once again with respect to @xmath217 yields,@xmath218   ^{2}}\right )   + \nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ &   -\frac{n}{\beta}\frac{2\beta\sinh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right ) } { 2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1}-j\frac{1}{2}nn2\left ( \frac{2\sinh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   } { 2\cosh\left ( \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1}\right )   \left (   \frac{2\beta\cosh\left ( \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   } { 2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1}-\frac{4\beta\sinh^{2}\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right ) } { \left [   2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1\right ]   ^{2}}\right )   + \nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ &   -\mu b^{\prime}n\left (   \frac{2\beta\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   } { 2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1}-\frac { 4\beta\sinh^{2}\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   } { \left [ 2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{a}}\right )   + 1\right ]   ^{2}}\right ) ~\text{. } \label{mess}\ ] ] after canceling terms in eq .
( [ mess ] ) , we arrive at @xmath219     vs. temperature @xmath69 .
we set @xmath124 and assume @xmath125 , @xmath126 , @xmath220 , @xmath221 and the level curves @xmath222 with @xmath223.,scaledwidth=50.0% ]    eq .
( [ cc ] ) is our final result .
a contour plot of @xmath224 defined as,@xmath225 as a function of @xmath180 and @xmath69 appears in fig .
as stated earlier , this equation can then be used as above to solve for the critical temperature , the total magnetic moment and the magnetic susceptibility for this specific ferromagnetic material . as a side remark
, we note that to make this result a little more general we can also write , @xmath226 where @xmath184 is once again the approximate partition function , @xmath227 is the number of nearest neighbors and @xmath228 is the approximate free energy . * * despite its lack of elegance , our entropic analysis leading to eq .
( [ cc ] ) together with fig .
3 seems to support the idea that the introduction of additional ( allowed ) states in the atomic ferromagnetic structure is consistent with both space shifts and nonhomogeneities of the critical temperature @xcite .
a deeper understanding of these specific aspects require a deeper analysis that we leave to future investigations .    as a side remark , although unnecessary and perhaps impractical , it should be noted that the * * _ spin state _ @xmath62 could be introduced as an observable quantity in a way that is analogous to how @xmath68 in eq .
( [ h_data ] ) was implemented .      in @xcite ,
onsager s method was used to study the physical properties of a two - dimensional square lattice containing four kinds of atoms under the assumption that only the interaction of nearest neighbors was important and that only two distinct energies of interaction were permitted . here , following this line of investigation , we examine the case where one of the _ atoms _ is actually a missing one . in real cases , it would be very difficult to know how many atoms there are of each type .
indeed , the point of the _ central atom _ idea is that we can not know the states of all the atoms in a lattice , so we must assume they are all the same .
however , it can be that when a crystal is scanned , the scan can indicate where there might be impurities or defects . in solid state physics ,
a point defect ( or , vacancy ) in a monatomic bravais lattice occurs whenever a lattice site that would usually be occupied by an ion in the perfect crystal has not any ion associated with it . for the sake of clarity , a vacancy is illustrated in fig .
4 . in the previous application
, we examined a three state atom . in this next example
, we shall examine a material that has a known defect or defects .
in this case , we need to use  two effective energy terms .
one for the atoms that are surrounded by non - defective atoms , @xmath229 and another for the ones affected by the defect , @xmath230 . for illustrative purposes , we will examine the case where we only have one defective atom .
this means that there are @xmath231 atoms that are surrounded by non - defective atoms , @xmath110 atoms that have one defective atom next to it and @xmath232 atom which is the defective atom . for our purposes , let us think of the defect as an empty slot .
given these conditions , the actual hamiltonian @xmath149 of the system is given by,@xmath233 where @xmath81 labels the non - defective atoms , @xmath82 labels the neighbors ( @xmath110 ) for these atoms , @xmath234 are the atoms affected by the defect , @xmath235 are the neighbors ( @xmath236 of the affected atoms and @xmath237 is the spin variable of the defective atom .
since we are looking at this defect as an empty slot , we let @xmath238 .
now we write our estimated hamiltonian @xmath175 for this case as , @xmath239        following the same procedures outlined above , we attain two expected values for the spin variables , one for each effective energy , @xmath240 and,@xmath241 once again , we write down the function @xmath188 we wish to minimize as@xmath242 where @xmath166 is arrived at in a similar way to eq .
( [ hamiltonian_nf ] ) . substituting eqs .
( [ himpo ] ) and ( [ himpa ] ) into eq .
( [ fimpo ] ) for @xmath188 yields , @xmath243 observe that,@xmath244 and , @xmath245 substituting eqs .
( [ asss ] ) and ( [ assss ] ) into eq .
( [ car ] ) , after some algebra , we obtain @xmath246   ~\text{,}\ ] ] where @xmath247 . substituting @xmath248
^{\left ( n - n-1\right )   } $ ] and @xmath249   ^{\left (   n\right )   } $ ] yields , @xmath250   ^{n - n-1}+\nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ -\frac{1}{\beta}\log\left [   2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right ) \right ]   ^{n-1 }   &   -j\sum_{i , j}^{n - n-1,n}\left\langle s_{i}s_{j}\right\rangle _ { \text{nd}}-j\sum_{k , l}^{n , n-1}\left\langle s_{k}s_{l}\right\rangle _ { _ { \text{d}}}-\mu b^{\prime}\left [   \epsilon_{\text{nd}}\left (   n - n-1\right ) \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{nd}}\right )   + \epsilon_{\text{d}}n\tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   \right ]   ~\text{.}\ ] ] since @xmath214 in eq .
( [ s_nd ] ) and @xmath251 in eq .
( [ s_d ] ) are independent of @xmath81 and @xmath234 , respectively , we have @xmath252 and @xmath253 .
therefore , we can write @xmath254   ^{n - n-1}-\frac { 1}{\beta}\log\left [   2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   \right ] ^{n-1}+\nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ &   -j\sum_{i , j}^{n - n-1,n}\left\langle s_{i}\right\rangle _ { \text{nd}}\left\langle s_{j}\right\rangle _ { \text{nd}}-j\sum_{k , l}^{n , n-1}\left\langle s_{k}\right\rangle _ { \text{d}}\left\langle s_{l}\right\rangle _ { \text{d}}-\mu b^{\prime}\left [   \epsilon_{\text{nd}}\left (   n - n-1\right )   \tanh\left ( \beta\epsilon_{\text{nd}}\right )   + \epsilon_{\text{d}}\left (   n\right ) \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   \right ]   ~\text{. } \label{mm}\ ] ] substituting eqs .
( [ s_nd ] ) and ( [ s_d ] ) into eq .
( [ mm ] ) yields , @xmath255   ^{n - n-1}+\nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ &   -\frac{1}{\beta}\log\left [   2\cosh\beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right ] ^{n-1}-\frac{1}{2}j\left (   n - n-1\right )   \left (   n\right )   \tanh^{2}\left ( \beta\epsilon_{\text{nd}}\right )   -\frac{1}{2}j\left (   n\right )   \left ( n-1\right )   \tanh^{2}\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   + \nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ &   -\mu b^{\prime}\left [   \epsilon_{\text{nd}}\left (   n - n-1\right ) \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{nd}}\right )   + \epsilon_{\text{d}}\left ( n\right )   \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   \right ]   \text{.}\ ] ] after collecting @xmath229 and @xmath230 like terms , we have @xmath256   ^{n - n-1}+\nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ &   -\frac{1}{2}j\left (   n - n-1\right )   \left (   n\right )   \tanh^{2}\left ( \beta\epsilon_{\text{nd}}\right )   -\mu b^{\prime}\epsilon_{\text{nd}}\left ( n - n-1\right )   \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{nd}}\right )   + \nonumber\\ & \nonumber\\ &   + \epsilon_{\text{d}}\left (   n\right )   \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   -\frac{1}{\beta}\log\left [   2\cosh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   \right ]   ^{n-1}-\frac{1}{2}j\left (   n\right )   \left (   n-1\right ) \tanh^{2}\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   -+\mu b^{\prime}\epsilon_{\text{d}}\left (   n\right )   \tanh\left (   \beta\epsilon_{\text{d}}\right )   ~\text{,}\ ] ] where the factor @xmath110 comes from the number of nearest neighbors , the factor @xmath73 is from the total number of atoms and the @xmath198 is due to double counting .
we now choose the form that minimizes @xmath188 with respect to @xmath229 and @xmath230 .
when minimizing with respect to @xmath229 , we obtain @xmath257 that is , after some simple algebra,@xmath258 similarly , when minimizing with respect to @xmath230 , one gets @xmath259     vs. temperature @xmath69 .
we set @xmath124 and assume @xmath125 , @xmath126 , @xmath220 , @xmath221 and the level curves @xmath260 with @xmath261.,scaledwidth=50.0% ]    eqs .
( [ fica1 ] ) and ( [ fica2 ] ) are final results .
a contour plot of @xmath262 * * defined as,@xmath263 as a function of @xmath230 and @xmath69 appears in fig .
these equations can then be used as above to solve for the critical temperature , the total magnetic moment and the magnetic susceptibility for this ferromagnetic material as usual .
the difference here is that we will have two of each .
for example , a critical temperature that applies to most of the atoms , and one that is local to the defect .
therefore , the total magnetic moment will not simply be a result of just one temperature but a combination of each magnetic moment determined by these equations .
notice that eq .
( [ ea_g ] ) still holds in general . in the two energy case
, we have for one energy the number of nearest neighbors , @xmath264 and for the second energy , @xmath265 . as a final consideration ,
we point out that the outcomes of our entropic analysis in eqs .
( [ fica1 ] ) and ( [ fica2 ] ) together with the numerical representation in fig .
5 are consistent with the fact that imperfections in the lattice structure can be the cause of structural irregularities in the critical temperature @xmath70 @xcite .
however , to obtain a deeper understanding of these aspects of ferromagnetic materials from an entropic viewpoint , a more thorough analysis would be required .
just as in the previous example , the * * _ defect _ could be introduced here as an observable by means of a constraint like relation,@xmath266 where * * @xmath267 is a kronecker delta function .
this makes much more sense here as this information may be obtained by common spectroscopic methods such as electron paramagnetic resonance , photoluminescence or cathodoluminescence . in the particular case considered here ,
we observed @xmath268 .
in this article , we showed that not only can the mre method be used for updating probability distributions with both data and expectation values , but for determining effective approximations of such probability distributions equivalent to those provided by the bogoliubov variational principle and/or mean field theory . specifically , after describing the traditional ising model of a ferromagnetic material and the mean field approximation for a multidimensional ferromagnet , we applied the mre method to infer both magnetization and energetic features of ferromagnets characterized by simple lattice configurations .
our main results can be summarized as follows :    1 .
the standard mean field theory solution was recovered via mre methods for the ferromagnetic ising model .
these findings are reported in eq .
( [ implicit ] ) and fig .
the main advantage of our analysis is the fact that we do not require the knowledge of the exact form of the effective energy @xmath180 and we allow for departures from the centrality of the atom .
2 .   moving past traditional methods and assumptions by using mre , we examined ferromagnets characterized by three state atoms . the outcomes of our entropic analysis are reported in eq .
( [ cc ] ) and fig .
3 . based on these results
, we concluded that our analysis appears to support the idea that the introduction of additional states in the atomic ferromagnetic structure is consistent with both space shifts and nonhomogeneities of the critical temperature @xmath70 @xcite .
a ferromagnetic material was considered * * that had known defects , which is beyond the scope of the mean field methodology .
these findings are presented in  eqs .
( [ fica1 ] ) , ( [ fica2 ] ) and fig .
5 . in each case
we uncovered results independent of the explicit form of the effective energy in the hamiltonian .
relying on these results , we concluded that our research appears to be consistent with the fact that imperfections in the lattice structure can be the cause of structural irregularities in the critical temperature @xmath70 @xcite .
although it may seem trivial to introduce the observational data through an mre constraint , as opposed to simply _ putting it in _ as would be conventionally done , it should be noted that these toy examples are mostly for pedagogical purposes in order to demonstrate how the mechanism works .
the power of this methodology enters when one does not know the expectation value of the hamiltonian , but may know how it relates to some observable , as done in @xcite .
for instance , a more interesting example might be a case in which the joint prior equals * * @xmath269 * * where * * @xmath270 * * is the bayesian likelihood that represents a model that relates some observable * * @xmath141 * * with * * @xmath116 * * , * * like * * @xmath271 * * with * * @xmath153 * * described in eq .
( [ 45 ] ) .
care must be taken when examining this scenario and such considerations will be explored in later works .
a function @xmath272 can fail to be differentiable at a point @xmath273 in three scenarios : it has a vertical tangent line at @xmath273 , it has a discontinuity at @xmath273 , it exhibits a kink ( or , corner ) at @xmath273 .
interestingly , we point out that figs .
@xmath274 , @xmath275 , and @xmath276 show a vertical tangent , a jump discontinuity , and a kink , respectively .
specifically , the arbitrary function @xmath277 is represented by the mean magnetization of the ferromagnetic material in fig .
@xmath274 , by the effective energy of an atom in fig .
@xmath275 , and finally , by the effective energy of a defective atom in fig . @xmath276 .
although numerical methods are often ineffective near points of discontinuity , our qualitative entropic analysis seems to suggest that departures from the standard ising model ( with a vertical tangent type of singularity ) can lead to alternative types of non - differentiable singularities .    while the findings uncovered in this manuscript are not conclusive ( about the nature of phase transitions in the presence of imperfections ) by any means , this work seems to suggest that using the mre method can be useful in inferring both thermal and electromagnetic properties of defective ferromagnetic materials in presence of available data from the substance being considered
of course , a more detailed investigation would be required to deepen our understanding of these important phenomena in fundamental and applied science .
indeed , it is our intention to extend our study to higher order spin configurations @xcite ( for example , xy spin chains , xx spin chains , heisenberg models , or , more generally , potts models @xcite ) . finally , we point out that mre methods employed in this article can be readily applied , in principle , to the investigation of more general dislocation , disclination , and dispiration defects in solid state physics @xcite
. in particular , it would be very interesting to infer physical properties of materials exhibiting a non - uniform distribution of defects of different types .
we leave these investigations to future efforts .
a. giffin would like to acknowledge valuable discussions with ariel caticha regarding some of the material presented in this manuscript .
finally , constructive criticisms from an anonymous referee leading to an improved version of this manuscript are sincerely acknowledged by the authors .
f. jean , g. collin , m. andrieux , n. blanchard , j .- f .
marucco , _ _ oxygen nonstoichiometry , point defects and critical temperature in superconducting oxide bi__@xmath278__sr__@xmath278__cacu__@xmath278__o__@xmath279 , physica * c339 * , 269 ( 2000 ) .