for observation windows of @xmath2 and @xmath3 ( smaller observation windows of @xmath4 are also outlined ) .
, width=321 ]    the hallmarks of the glass transition @xcite are a sudden increase of relaxation times , and dynamic heterogeneity @xcite . a recent paper @xcite described the idea that these phenomena are manifestations of phase coexistence in space - time .
the two competing phases are an active state , containing many relaxation events , and an inactive one , where these events are scarce .
the purpose of the current paper is to develop these ideas by building on the results of ref .
@xcite .    in the active phase of the dynamics ,
the existence of the inactive phase can be inferred by measuring the distribution of any observable that measures the quantity of relaxation events within a finite space - time window @xcite . because of the coexisting inactive phase , these distributions display non - gaussian tails .
this behaviour is analogous to the situation in standard phase transitions : the distribution of cavity sizes in a fluid near liquid vapour coexistence has non - gaussian tails @xcite , as does the distribution of box magnetization for the ising model in the vicinity of its phase transition @xcite .
the concept of space - time thermodynamics that we use @xcite is illustrated in fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] .
it employs a simple picture of glassy dynamics at low temperatures , in which diffusing excitations coalesce and branch @xcite .
this dynamics is reducible @xcite .
that is , there are two steady states , an active one with a finite density of excitations , and an inactive one with strictly zero density . working in the active state , the dominant fluctuations on large length scales are space - time regions in which there are no excitations , as illustrated in fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] .
we refer to these regions as `` bubbles '' of the inactive phase .
we characterise the bubbles by the probability density function @xmath5 for their spatial and temporal extents ( denoted @xmath6 and @xmath7 , respectively ) . to the extent that these rare fluctuations are dynamical analogues of those near phase coexistence , and for bubbles which are large compared with the bulk correlation length of the active state , we can write : @xmath8\right\ } ,   \label{equ : bubble_dist}\ ] ] where @xmath9 and @xmath10 are , in effect , surface tensions in the spatial and temporal directions respectively , @xmath11 is the difference between the bulk free energy densities of active and inactive phases , and @xmath12 controls the aspect ratio of the bubbles , in conjunction with the velocity parameter @xmath13 .
this distribution of ( [ equ : bubble_dist ] ) can be investigated by considering the probability distribution functions for observables that are averaged over finite regions of space - time , such as the boxes in fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ]  @xcite .
large rare bubbles dominate the tails of these distributions .
the terminology `` free energy '' , as used in the previous paragraph , refers to space - time ; the relevant ensemble is a the space of histories ( or trajectories ) of the system , which is observed for a specified period of time , @xmath14 .
this concept of a free energy is central to ref .
@xcite , and it is found also in the thermodynamic formulation of dynamics due to ruelle @xcite . in particular , for a @xmath0-dimensional system , one considers statistical mechanics in the corresponding @xmath15-dimensional space .
the extra dimension is that of time , so the resulting space is necessarily anisotropic .
thus , to appreciate the analogy with phase coexistence for @xmath16 , consider an anisotropic two - dimensional ising model below its critical temperature , with a small field stabilising the spin - up phase .
the spins are predominately up , but there will be a distribution of spin - down domains with various sizes . in the case where the interactions are different in the @xmath17 and @xmath18 directions ,
the distribution of sizes for domains of the spin - down phase is of the form @xmath19\right\ } , \label{equ : ising_dist}\ ] ] where @xmath17 and @xmath18 are the extents of the bubbles in the @xmath17 and @xmath18 directions ; @xmath20 and @xmath21 are surface tensions ; @xmath22 is the free energy difference between up and down phases ( proportional to the small field ) ; and @xmath23 and @xmath24 set the shape of the bubbles .
as phase coexistence is approached in the ising system , the free energy difference @xmath22 approaches zero . in the dynamical system , the corresponding limit is @xmath25 , in which case active and inactive states coexist .
a central result of this article is that @xmath26 for systems in which the dynamics is reducible into active and inactive partitions . within the thermodynamic formalism of ruelle
the free energy difference @xmath11 is the difference in the so - called ` topological pressure ' @xcite between the active and inactive phases of the dynamics .
since the phases are at coexistence in these models , a boundary condition suffices to make the system choose one phase .
for example , consider a system with periodic spatial boundary conditions , as sketched in fig .
[ fig : bc ] . if we choose our initial condition to be completely inactive , then this state persists forever ; all other initial conditions lead to the active state .    in this article
, we use the the fredrickson - andersen ( fa ) facilitated spin model @xcite as an illustrative system . in the following section , we probe the distribution of ( [ equ : bubble_dist ] ) by analysing the distributions of space - time observables , such as the total amount of dynamical activity inside a given spatial region , integrated over a finite observation time .
the forms of these distributions also imply that @xmath26 , in accordance with our analytic arguments .
we also compare the fa model with two other systems . in ref .
@xcite , a model with appearing and annihilating excitations ( the so - called aa model ) was shown to have the same two point correlations as the fa model ( up to a multiplicative factor ) .
however , we show that this model has mesoscopic fluctuations that are very different from those of the fa model .
conversely , breaking microscopic reversibility in the fa model moves moves the system into the directed percolation ( dp ) universality class  @xcite .
in that case , the the two point functions and critical scaling change qualitatively . however , the active and inactive states still coexist , so the fluctuations are still well - described by the phase coexistence analogy .    the paper is organized as follows . in section  [ sec : model ]
we define the model , discuss its trajectories , and introduce the observables of interest .
we also show that reducibility of the dynamics is essential to see the phase coexistence effect . in section  [ sec : action ] we formalise our discussion of space - time thermodynamics by considering the distribution of the dynamical action that is analogous to the thermodynamic free energy .
we consider the effect of breaking microscopic reversibility in section  [ sec : dp ] .
kinetically constrained models ( see ref .
@xcite for a comprehensive review ) are defined in such a way that their non - trivial behaviour is purely dynamical in origin .
thus , they are the natural framework for investigating dynamical heterogeneity and its consequences @xcite .
a very simple kinetically constrained model is the single - spin facilitated fa model @xcite in dimension @xmath16 .
it is defined for a chain of @xmath27 binary variables @xmath28 , with trivial hamiltonian @xmath29 .
the model evolves under the following monte - carlo ( mc ) dynamics . at each mc iteration a randomly chosen site @xmath30 changes state according to : @xmath31 where we have set @xmath32 and @xmath33 .
the non - trivial part of the dynamics is due to the facilitation function @xmath34 that is , a spin flip on site @xmath30 can take place only if at least one if its nearest neighbours is in the excited state .
since @xmath35 does not depend on @xmath36 then the time evolution of the model obeys detailed balance with respect to @xmath37 at temperature @xmath38 . the mean density of up spins in the active state is @xmath39 the unit of time is an mc sweep ( @xmath27 attempted spin flips ) .    in the following , we consider an fa model in which @xmath27 is to be taken to infinity in the thermodynamic limit .
we will take a subsystem of this model , containing @xmath40 spins , @xmath41 .
the length @xmath42 is to remain finite : it is a mesoscopic quantity .
a trajectory for the subsystem specifies the state of the @xmath43 spins at @xmath44 mc steps .
the trajectory is defined within a space - time observation box of size @xmath45 .
we consider observables such as the density of excitations within the box , for a given trajectory : @xmath46 where @xmath47 is the state of the @xmath30th spin in the @xmath7th state of the trajectory .
note that the boundaries @xmath48 and @xmath49 do not appear in the sum .
the quantity @xmath50 is analogous to the net magnetization of a @xmath15-dimensional ising model , and thus we often refer to it as the `` magnetization '' .
however , its physical meaning is that of mobility or activity , i.e. , the net number of cells in the observed space - time volume that exhibit an appreciable degree of molecular motion .
this meaning is that of garrahan and chandler s coarse grained view of structural glasses @xcite . in an atomistic treatment
, a corresponding quantity can be expressed in terms of the observable @xmath51\ } $ ] where @xmath52 is the position of the @xmath53th particle at time @xmath54 , and @xmath55 is a microscopic wave vector ( on the order of the inverse particle size ) .
if @xmath56 is small , then particle @xmath53 experienced a relaxation event between times @xmath54 and @xmath57 . for a subsystem of particles , @xmath58
, we define the density of relaxation events , or net mobility , in space and time to be @xmath59\ ] ] where @xmath60 is the number of particles in the subsystem @xmath58 .
the quantity @xmath61 is parametrised by microscopic length and time scales ( @xmath62 and @xmath63 ) , and is summed over a mesoscopic region of space - time . the parameters @xmath62 and @xmath63 coincide with coarse graining lengths and time , respectively .
the fluctuations in @xmath61 are related to four point observables @xcite ; the distribution of @xmath61 is also related to the distributions of correlation functions measured in @xcite .
results for distributions of the density of relaxation events in atomistic glass - formers show non - gaussian tails similar to those that we present here @xcite . however , the purpose of this article is to discuss generic properties of dynamically heterogeneous systems , so we restrict ourselves to very simple models .
we consider the distribution of the trajectory activity , or box magnetisation @xmath50 : @xmath64 the sum is over all possible trajectories of the system , with their associated probabilities @xmath65 . in the limit of @xmath66 or @xmath67 , the central limit theorem states that @xmath68 will be sharply peaked around @xmath69 , with a variance that scales as @xmath70 .
the observation of ref .
@xcite was that while this is the case in the limit of large @xmath71 , the distribution of @xmath72 remains non - trivial even for @xmath73 and @xmath74 , where @xmath75 and @xmath76 are the correlation length and time associated with the zero temperature dynamical fixed point of this model .     at @xmath77 , @xmath4 and various observation times .
we use @xmath78 which is large enough so that @xmath68 does not depend on @xmath27 .
the exponential tails of @xmath68 all have similar gradients : the dotted lines are @xmath79 with @xmath80 . , width=321 ]    we show various @xmath68 in fig .
[ fig : pm_simple ] .
the peak of @xmath68 is gaussian , and this corresponds to trajectories like the one on the top - right of fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] .
the tails of @xmath68 are exponential for small @xmath72 .
this data was obtained using a combination of transition path sampling ( tps ) @xcite and umbrella sampling @xcite .
for details see the appendix .
the trajectories in the tail are dominated by rare large regions which have no excitations , like the the one on the bottom - right of fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] .    to explain the presence of the exponential tail , suppose that we have a trajectory with an initial condition containing a large empty region of size @xmath17 , and that this empty region persists throughout @xmath81 , leading to a box magnetisation that is small .
now consider a trajectory whose initial condition has an empty region of size @xmath82 , but is otherwise identical to the original one .
then the probabilities of the two trajectories are in the ratio @xmath83 , and their magnetisations differ by approximately @xmath84 .
thus we predict @xmath85 .
\label{equ : pm_naive}\ ] ] the significance of this result is that the right hand side is independent of @xmath81 : increasing the observation time changes the factor multiplying the tail in @xmath68 , but the gradient of the tail remains constant .
[ fig : pm_simple ] shows that the gradient is indeed independent of @xmath81 .
however , the quantitative prediction for its value is accurate only to within 20 - 30% . this inaccuracy arises because the large inactive region may extend beyond the edge of the box
thus , adding extra down sites to the initial condition may decrease the magnetisation by an amount less than @xmath86 .     at @xmath77 for varying @xmath42 and @xmath87 .
we use @xmath88 which is large enough that the results do not depend on @xmath27 .
( top ) increasing observation time at at fixed @xmath89 .
( middle ) increasing box size @xmath42 at @xmath90 . as @xmath42 or @xmath81
is increased , we move from a regime in which the tail gradient is independent of the increasing parameter to a regime in which the gradient is proportional to that parameter .
( bottom ) we show a typical trajectory for large @xmath14 and @xmath89 where the observation box is outlined : the size of the total spatial region shown is @xmath91 . for large @xmath42
the trajectories are of the form shown in fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] . , width=321 ]     at @xmath77 for varying @xmath42 and @xmath87 .
we use @xmath88 which is large enough that the results do not depend on @xmath27 .
( top ) increasing observation time at at fixed @xmath89 .
( middle ) increasing box size @xmath42 at @xmath90 . as @xmath42 or @xmath81
is increased , we move from a regime in which the tail gradient is independent of the increasing parameter to a regime in which the gradient is proportional to that parameter .
( bottom ) we show a typical trajectory for large @xmath14 and @xmath89 where the observation box is outlined : the size of the total spatial region shown is @xmath91 . for large @xmath42
the trajectories are of the form shown in fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] . , width=321 ]     at @xmath77 for varying @xmath42 and @xmath87 .
we use @xmath88 which is large enough that the results do not depend on @xmath27 .
( top ) increasing observation time at at fixed @xmath89 .
( middle ) increasing box size @xmath42 at @xmath90 . as @xmath42 or @xmath81
is increased , we move from a regime in which the tail gradient is independent of the increasing parameter to a regime in which the gradient is proportional to that parameter .
( bottom ) we show a typical trajectory for large @xmath14 and @xmath89 where the observation box is outlined : the size of the total spatial region shown is @xmath91 . for large @xmath42
the trajectories are of the form shown in fig .  [
fig : bubble_sketch ] .
, width=166,height=113 ]    in fig .
[ fig : pm_simple ] , the exponential tail of @xmath68 depends only on @xmath42 and not on @xmath81 , but this is a result of the shape of the observation box : the behaviour of @xmath68 is symmetric with respect to @xmath42 and @xmath81 . in fig .
[ fig : pm_l20 ] we show how @xmath68 changes as we change the aspect ratio of the observation box .
there is a crossover at @xmath92 , where @xmath93 at @xmath77 .
for @xmath94 the gradient of the exponential tail is independent of @xmath81 as described above , but for @xmath95 then the argument must be modified .
typical trajectories at small @xmath72 change their form to that shown in fig.[fig : pm_l20 ] ( right ) . in that case , increasing the width of the bubble does not change @xmath72 ; we must instead increase the time for which the inactive state persists .
repeating the argument leads to a situation in which the gradient of the exponential tail is proportional to @xmath81 and independent of @xmath42 , see fig.[fig : pm_l20 ] . in other words ,
the gradient of the exponential tail is proportional to @xmath96 .
the spatial and temporal extent of the box enter on equal footing .
the data of fig.[fig : pm_l20 ] is consistent with the crossover from large @xmath42 to large @xmath81 occuring when @xmath81 is of the order of the first passage time across a bubble of size @xmath42 .
this time scales as @xmath97 since the spreading velocity @xcite in the fa model is @xmath98 .
consistent with the known scaling of the fa model in one dimension  @xcite , we find that the temperature dependent of @xmath68 can be accounted for by using rescaled variables .
the function @xmath99 depends only weakly on @xmath100 , as shown in fig .
[ fig : fa_scaling ] .
while subleading corrections to the scaling do appear to be significant , there is no qualitative change on lowering the temperature .
this justifies our working at inverse temperatures around @xmath77 , where the data is easier to obtain than in the more glassy regime of the fa model ( @xmath101 ) .    as a final observation in this subsection
, we note that the behaviour of @xmath68 for small observation boxes , @xmath102 or @xmath103 , is different from that for large boxes .
this is shown in fig.[fig : pmfa_small ] .
the distribution acquires a secondary peak at @xmath104 : there is a finite probability of observing @xmath105 , so that @xmath68 diverges as @xmath106 .
we will return to this feature below .      in the previous subsection ,
the non - trivial structure in @xmath68 occurs in the tails of the distribution .
it is associated with rare collective fluctuations in the system .
we will argue below that these rare fluctuations do contain significant information about the model .
we first compare the magnetisation distributions of the fa model and the aa model of @xcite .
the aa model has the same two - point correlation functions as the fa model in equilibrium , but other properties of the two systems are qualitatively different .
we define the aa model by specifying local moves for a chain of binary variables : @xmath107 where @xmath108 is an arbitrary temperature dependent factor that rescales the time , chosen for later convenience .
these rates again respect detailed balance with respect to @xmath109 , and the inverse temperature is @xmath110 .
correlation functions in the steady state of the aa model at a given temperature are related to those in the fa model at a different temperature @xcite ( strictly this holds when the facilitation function is proportional to the number of up neighbours , not when it is equal to zero or one as here , but there is no qualitative change to the physics ) .
the relationship between correlators depends only on simple multiplicative factors , for example @xcite @xmath111 where @xmath112 is the inverse temperature in the fa model and @xmath110 the inverse temperature in the aa model .
equation ( [ equ : aa_fa_prop ] ) holds when @xmath113     in the fa model at various temperatures , scaled according to ( [ equ : temp_scaling ] ) .
we plot @xmath114 : the box sizes are @xmath115 ; the observation times are @xmath116 ; and we use @xmath117 .
these temperatures are not very small , so there are subleading corrections to scaling , but there is no qualitative change to the scaled distribution on lowering the temperature .
further , the computational time required at @xmath118 is quite significant , so we can not rule out small systematic errors arising from non - convergence of our tps procedure ( see appendix).,width=321 ]    it is clear from ( [ equ : aa_fa_prop ] ) that the scaling behaviour and critical properties of the fa and aa models are the same .
however , their activity or magnetisation distributions are different , as shown in fig .  [
fig : aa_fa ] .
the exponential tail is absent in the aa case .
moreover , the persistence functions of the two models are different [ the persistence function is the probability that a site does not flip at all in an interval of length @xmath54 ] . the fluctuations responsible for the tails in @xmath68 can be linked to the decoupling of exchange and persistence times in the fa model @xcite , a feature which is absent in the aa case .
we argue that there are important differences between the dynamics of the fa and aa models : subsystem observables like @xmath68 make these differences clear where two - point functions like @xmath120 do not .     at @xmath77 , @xmath121 , @xmath122 , showing secondary maximum at small @xmath72 .
( inset ) enlargement of the secondary peak , shown in a linear scale for @xmath68.,width=321 ]
we have shown that the distribution of subsystem magnetisations in the fa model has an exponential tail at small magnetisation .
we also showed that this tail comes from rare mesoscopic regions of space - time in which there are no relaxation events . in this section
we study the statistical mechanics of the space - time configurations of the subsystem .
we draw an analogy between these space - time statistics and the thermodynamic statistics of a system near a phase coexistence boundary .     where @xmath123 is the variance of the instantaneous magnetisation .
parameters are @xmath4 , @xmath90 , @xmath78 ; in the fa model @xmath77 ; in the aa model @xmath110 is given by ( [ equ : aa_temp ] ) with @xmath77 . for the aa model ,
@xmath68 is close to gaussian .
the standard deviation @xmath124 is _ not _ trivially related to the variance of the box magnetisation , so the fact that the gaussian parts of the two distributions are very similar is a non - trivial consequence of the exact mapping between the two models.,width=321 ]      to make this analogy concrete , we define the probability of a trajectory being generated by some ( markovian ) dynamical rules : @xmath125 where @xmath126 represents the state of the system at time @xmath7 ; the transition probabilities are denoted by @xmath127 ; @xmath128 is the probability of the trajectory of the two boundary spins ; and @xmath129 is the probability of the initial condition ( @xmath130 ) .
we note that the transition probabilities into a state @xmath131 depend on the state of the boundary spins as well as the state @xmath132 .
it is convenient to define the dynamical action , @xmath133 and the dynamical partition sum , @xmath134 which is equal to unity when @xmath135 .
the extensivity properties of the action @xmath136 will be discussed below . to make the correspondence with a thermodynamic partition sum
, we simply define @xmath137 where the sum is over configurations of a system ; @xmath138 is the energy of a configuration ; and @xmath112 is the inverse temperature .
the application of thermodynamic formalism to dynamical objects such as @xmath139 is found in the work of ruelle @xcite .
a very recent and detailed discussion of its application to markov chains is given in @xcite ; the parameter @xmath140 of that paper is @xmath141 in our notation ; the kolmogorov - sinai entropy @xmath142 of the ruelle formalism is the mean action , @xmath143 in our notation . to treat phase coexistence in ordinary thermodynamics ,
one may decompose the partition function into its pure states @xcite @xmath144 where @xmath145 is the contribution of pure state @xmath146 to the partition sum .
for example , in the ising system then the two pure states have positive and negative magnetisations , and statistical weights @xmath147 and @xmath148 .
the difference in free energy density between the two states is @xmath149 at phase coexistence , we have @xmath150 .
the result is that subextensive contributions to @xmath151 from boundary conditions are sufficient to select one phase over the other .    by analogy , for dynamically heterogeneous systems
, we make an decomposition of @xmath152 into its reducible partitions @xcite .
if there are two such partitions then we write @xmath153 where the two terms are the probabilities that an initial condition lies in one partition or the other .
we then define @xmath154 , \label{equ : mu_ic}\ ] ] by analogy with the static free energy difference @xmath22 .
the probabilities @xmath155 and @xmath156 are independent of @xmath14 , so @xmath11 vanishes as @xmath14 is taken to @xmath157 , and an initial condition on the system is sufficient to select the active or inactive partition of the dynamics : see figure  [ fig : bc ] . in a similar way , a boundary condition is sufficient to select the up or down pure state in an ising system below the critical temperature . recalling ( [ equ : bubble_dist ] ) and ( [ equ : ising_dist ] ) , we observe that phase coexistence and reducibility lead to distributions with @xmath150 and @xmath26 respectively .
the free energy cost associated with large bubbles ( or down domains ) comes from their boundaries and not from the bulk .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] illustrates how fa model trajectories with low densities of relaxation events typically contain a large compact `` bubble '' in which there are no relaxation events . in the fa model
then these large bubbles are more common than homogeneous reductions in the density .
conversely , in the aa model , the large bubbles are absent and the homogeneous regions of low density determine the tail of the magnetisation distribution ( recall figure  [ fig : aa_fa ] ) .
the fa model is reducible , so the distribution of large bubbles will be that of ( [ equ : bubble_dist ] ) , with @xmath26 [ recall ( [ equ : mu_ic ] ) ] .
the derivation of the magnetisation distribution from the bubble distribution depends on the ratio of @xmath42 and @xmath14 . for observation windows such that @xmath158
, trajectories with small @xmath50 contain large bubbles that span the temporal extent of the observation window , as in the lower right panel of figure  [ fig : bubble_sketch ] . in that case
, we have @xmath159 .\ ] ] where @xmath6 is the spatial extent of the bubble .
the probability of the box containing a bubble of this size and shape is @xmath160 assuming that @xmath12 is not too small , so that @xmath161 is sharply peaked around @xmath162 , then @xmath163 , \ ] ] for @xmath164 $ ] . unless @xmath11 is very small , the term proportional to @xmath11 will dominate at large @xmath42 , leading to a gaussian distribution .
however , in the case of small @xmath11 , the distribution is exponential in @xmath72 , and the gradient of this exponential tail is proportional to @xmath42 and independent of @xmath81 , as observed in fig .
[ fig : pm_simple ] .
a similar argument holds in the opposite regime of @xmath165 and @xmath166 $ ] , which explains the exponential tails of fig .
[ fig : pm_l20 ] .    pursuing the analogy with phase coexistence
, we identify the active partition of the dynamics with a dense phase and the inactive partition with a sparse phase .
the density of dynamical activity in the active phase is @xmath167 .
the typical length scale associated with bubbles of the sparse phase is @xmath168 which scales as @xmath169 .
thus , the typical bubble size and the typical spacing between excitations scale in the same way as the temperature is reduced .
this scaling @xcite is consequence of detailed balance in the fa model , which implies that excitations are uncorrelated at equal times : @xmath170 .    in section
[ sec : dp ] , we will show how generalising the fa model to a system which does not obey detailed balance leads to a situation in which the typical bubble sizes are larger than the excitation spacing .
this situation is the usual one in systems at phase coexistence : the fa model is a special case because of the extra symmetry of detailed balance .      in the analogy between static and dynamic partition sums , the dynamical action of eq .
( [ equ : def_action ] ) corresponds to the energy of the static system . for the fa model ,
the transition probabilities are @xmath171 where the projector @xmath172 takes the value of unity if @xmath140 and @xmath173 differ in the state of exactly one spin , otherwise it is equal to zero ; @xmath174\ ] ] accounts for transitions into state @xmath140 ; and @xmath175 \right\}\ ] ] accounts for transitions from state @xmath140 . the symbol @xmath176 is equal to unity if and only if states @xmath140 and @xmath173 are identical , and the function @xmath177 was defined in ( [ equ : def_f ] ) : its value is unity if spin @xmath30 is free to flip ; otherwise it is zero .
these operators enforce the constraint that only one spin flips on each time step .    taking the limit of large @xmath27 , and using ( [ equ : def_action ] ) ,
we arrive at the action for an allowed trajectory : @xmath178 \nonumber \\ & & + ( \hbox{boundary terms } ) , \label{equ : def_sn}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath179 is the total number of flips from state @xmath180 to state @xmath181 inside the observation box and , similarly , @xmath182 is the number of flips from @xmath181 to @xmath180 .
of course , trajectories containing transitions that are not allowed by the dynamical rules have @xmath183 and their action is formally infinite ; we ignore them in what follows .
we now discuss briefly the extensivity properties of the dynamical action .
the probability @xmath65 is associated with the states of @xmath42 spins over a time period @xmath14 .
however , the positions of the spin flip events in time are specified with a resolution that depends on the system size , @xmath27 .
thus , the probability of any trajectory vanishes as @xmath184 and the action diverges logarithmically with @xmath27 as well as being extensive in @xmath42 and @xmath14 .
we therefore introduce a coarse - graining timescale @xmath63 .
that is , we define @xmath185 where the sum is over trajectories with the same spin flips as the original trajectory , but the flips may happen within an interval @xmath186 of their original times .
the second , approximate , equality indicates that as long as @xmath186 is not too large then the probability of all trajectories in the sum will be approximately equal , and the number of such trajectories is @xmath187 .
the result is that @xmath188 \nonumber \\ & & + ( \hbox{boundary terms } ) , \label{equ : def_sdt}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where we have converted the sum to an integral , which is valid in the limit of large @xmath27 .
this definition of the action is parametrised by the coarse - grained time scale @xmath186 . for fixed @xmath63 , distributions of @xmath189
have a peak whose position is independent of @xmath27 and extensive in @xmath42 and @xmath81 .
our results do not depend qualitatively on @xmath63 ; the numerical results below are at @xmath190 .
finally , we have no prescription for calculating the boundary terms in the action ; these terms are not extensive in @xmath191 , so we neglect them in what follows .    , @xmath90 , obtained with @xmath78 . ( top )
contour plot of the joint probability distribution for action density and magnetisation @xmath192 ( obtained from @xmath193 independent trajectories ) .
the contours are at @xmath194 .
the dotted line is the prediction ( [ equ : sm_dist ] ) .
( bottom ) distribution of the action density @xmath195 [ where @xmath196.,width=287 ]    , @xmath90 , obtained with @xmath78 .
( top ) contour plot of the joint probability distribution for action density and magnetisation @xmath192 ( obtained from @xmath193 independent trajectories ) .
the contours are at @xmath194 .
the dotted line is the prediction ( [ equ : sm_dist ] ) .
( bottom ) distribution of the action density @xmath195 [ where @xmath196.,width=287 ]    results for the distribution of the dynamical action density , @xmath197 , and its joint distribution with the box magnetisation , are shown in figure  [ fig : fa_action ] .
we see that the distribution of the action density is tightly correlated with that of the magnetisation .    to understand this
, we define the density of facilitated spins in a trajectory to be @xmath198    now , facilitated down spins flip with rate @xmath199 and facilitated up spins flip with rate unity . since @xmath200 , there are many such independent events within the observation window , so that fluctuations in the number of these events are small . therefore , @xmath201 where the approximate equalities indicate that the joint distribution of each pair of observables are sharply peaked around these values ( we have verified this by measuring joint distributions of the form shown in fig .  [
fig : fa_action ] ) .
further , each up - spin is associated with two facilitated spins .
taking into account spins that are facilitated by two separate up spins , we have @xmath202 where the approximate equality holds in a similar sense , and @xmath50 is the magnetisation or activity of the trajectory of interest , defined in ( [ equ : def_mag ] ) .    hence , taking these results together , we predict that the joint distribution of magnetisation and action density is sharply peaked around @xmath203 , \label{equ : sm_dist}\ ] ] in accordance with the results of figure  [ fig : fa_action ] .
we conclude that the exponential tail in the magnetisation distribution is intrinsically linked with the exponential tail in the distribution of the dynamical action .
numerical evidence for this result was given in @xcite , but without concrete explanation .
the definition ( [ equ : zb ] ) motivates us to define a new ensemble for the dynamics , in which the probabilities of trajectories are @xmath204 this ensemble has the action distribution @xmath205 .
\label{equ : pbs}\ ] ] hence , if @xmath206 has an exponential tail with gradient @xmath146 then @xmath207 has a similar exponential tail with gradient @xmath208 .
increasing @xmath209 reduces the gradient , so large inactive regions become more common .
observables within the @xmath209-ensemble can be measured by averaging over the dynamics at @xmath135 and reweighting the resulting trajectories according to their action .
see the left panel of figure  [ fig : dp_simple ] .
since the magnetisation and action are tightly correlated , increasing @xmath209 leads to a reduction in the gradient of the exponential tail of @xmath68 .
we associate the vanishing of this gradient with the proliferation of trajectories with large bubbles . in @xcite
, it was argued that this proliferation would appear as a first order transition to a state with large inactive bubbles , if an appropriate dynamics could be found to generate the @xmath209-ensemble .    for a given @xmath42 and @xmath14 ,
a stochastic process exists whose statistics are those of the @xmath209-ensemble ( the probability of each trajectory is known , and an appropriate dynamics can be constructed ) .
this construction is extremely laborious , since the transition probabilities depend explicitly on the size of the space - time box , and on the position ( and time ) within it .
alternatively , one can simulate master equations such as those of @xcite , which do not conserve probability .
such a simulation requires a dynamics in which ` clones ' of the system are created and destroyed , according to certain rules @xcite .
the connection to experimentally accessible dynamics for either alternative is not yet apparent , which limits analysis of the predicted first order transition . on the other hand ,
the effects of phase coexistence can be probed experimentally by moving towards the second order critical point at the end of the phase coexistence boundary . as discussed in section  [ sec : discuss_dist ] above , this critical point is approached as @xmath210 in the fa model . in that limit , the order parameter @xmath211 and the surface tension @xmath212 vanish with the same power of @xmath100 .
the function @xmath68 scales according to ( [ equ : temp_scaling ] ) , and it is hard to discern the two coexisting phases
.    however , we can modify the fa model by introducing an extra process whereby sites can flip from state @xmath181 to state @xmath180 , even when unfacilitated .
this new process breaks detailed balance , so the resulting model is not appropriate for an equilibrium physical system , but such models are widely studied in a range of physical contexts @xcite .
the rate for spins to flip from down to up is now finite at the critical point , and the new transition is in the directed percolation ( dp ) universality class , where the effects of phase coexistence are more apparent .
to be precise , the generalised fa model has dynamical rules @xmath213 the generalised model has @xmath214 since all probabilities must be positive ; @xmath215 is the fa model . for @xmath216
then the system no longer obeys detailed balance , and @xmath112 can no longer be interpreted as an inverse temperature .
, for different values of @xmath112 with @xmath217 . the axis @xmath215 is the fa model and the axis @xmath105 is a line of critical points .
the dotted line separates the region in which the scaling of directed percolation ( dp ) will apply from those in which @xmath218 can be treated perturbatively [ so the scaling will be that of the coagulation - diffusion ( cd ) fixed point ] . the fa model ( @xmath215 )
is the unique case for which the critical scaling is coagulation - diffusion ; for finite @xmath218 the relevant critical point is dp .
, width=321 ]    the qualitative behaviour of the model with finite @xmath218 is shown in fig .
[ fig : dp_sketch ] . the `` dimensionless '' parameter that determines the effect of @xmath218 is the product of the death rate and the relaxation time of the fa model : @xmath219 which defines @xmath220 . at any finite @xmath112
there is a directed percolation transition to an active state , which occurs when @xmath220 is of order unity .
this transition is accompanied by a diverging static correlation length : @xmath221 where @xmath222 is the length scale that diverges at the transition and @xmath223 and @xmath224 are dp exponents @xcite ( the dimensionality is @xmath16 ) . on the other hand , if @xmath225 then there is a transition at @xmath226 that is controlled by the coagulation - diffusion fixed point . in that case
we have @xmath227 for all @xmath100 .
we show in the figure how the crossover into the dp critical region is always relevant if @xmath220 is finite , but does not affect the behaviour if @xmath225 .
we note that between two and four dimensions a similar picture holds , but the scaling at @xmath225 will be gaussian @xcite .    turning to the dynamical action , we define @xmath228 + n_{i\tau } r \right\ } \nonumber\\ \label{equ : def_sr}\end{aligned}\ ] ] by analogy with ( [ equ : def_sdt ] ) , where we have set the coarse - graining time scale @xmath190 for ease of writing .
equations  ( [ equ : fac_rel1]-[equ : nf_rel ] ) remain true since facilitated spins are still equilibrated at a density close to @xmath229 ( but note that the mean density in the system will be less than @xmath100 : the death process reduces the mean density ) . in fig .
[ fig : dp_simple ] we plot the distribution of the action density at finite @xmath218 and compare it with the behaviour of the @xmath209-ensemble .
since the system does not obey detailed balance the tps procedure becomes inefficient : data at finite @xmath218 is obtained by simple binning and histogramming . in the @xmath209-ensemble
, the mean action is reduced as the ( finite ) system crosses over from an active to an inactive state ( this crossover would be a first order phase transition in the thermodynamic limit ) .
on the other hand , increasing @xmath218 reduces the gradient of the exponential tail and the mean action , as the second order phase transition is approached ( at @xmath230 ) .     with conditions otherwise similar to fig .  [
fig : pm_simple ] ( @xmath77 , @xmath4 @xmath231 ) .
( left ) sample from centre of distribution .
( right ) sample with @xmath232 .
clearly there are more large inactive regions in these trajectories than in those of fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] ; increasing @xmath220 from zero leads to proliferation of large `` bubbles''.,title="fig:",width=151,height=75 ]   with conditions otherwise similar to fig .
[ fig : pm_simple ] ( @xmath77 , @xmath4 @xmath231 ) .
( left ) sample from centre of distribution .
( right ) sample with @xmath232 .
clearly there are more large inactive regions in these trajectories than in those of fig .
[ fig : bubble_sketch ] ; increasing @xmath220 from zero leads to proliferation of large `` bubbles''.,title="fig:",width=151,height=75 ]    the key difference between the fa model and its generalisation to finite @xmath218 is that the surface tension and mean magnetisation decouple at finite @xmath218 . on reducing the temperature in the fa model ( @xmath215 , @xmath233 ) we have @xmath234 , so the typical bubble size @xmath168 scales in the same way as the inverse density of up spins .
in contrast , as we approach the dp fixed point ( @xmath112 finite , @xmath235 ) then we have @xmath236 where @xmath237 are the exponents of the dp fixed point @xcite ( @xmath238 should not be confused with the parameter @xmath112 that enters the transition probabilities ) .
as criticality is approached , the mean bubble size increases much faster than the inverse density since @xmath239 .
the up spins cluster together , leaving large inactive regions consisting only of down spins .
introducing the death process drives the system towards a phase separation into active and inactive regions of space - time .
this can be seen in the trajectories of fig .
[ fig : dp_traj ] .    finally , we note that the critical dp scaling leads to a crossover at small @xmath220 , when the typical size of inactive regions exceeds the observation box ( @xmath240 ) . in that case , @xmath195 acquires a second peak at zero magnetisation ( see the largest value of @xmath220 in fig.[fig : dp_simple ] ) .
this is analogous to the situation for small boxes ( @xmath241 ) in the fa case ( recall fig .  [
fig : pmfa_small ] ) . in the thermodynamic language
, it corresponds to a second minimum in the free energy , as would be observed near a first order phase transition . here
, the phase transition is second order , but the finite size of the observation box means that the divergence of the correlation length is cut off at the size of the observation box .
thus , we have shown that adding a death process to the fa model strengthens the analogy between trajectory statistics and the statistical mechanics of phase coexistence .
in the fa model , the only length scale is the inverse density of up spins ; if @xmath218 is finite then a new length scale appears : the dp correlation length .
this second length scale allows the density of active regions to decouple from their separation , leading to richer behaviour than that of the fa model ( which corresponds to the particular case of the phase coexistence in which the two length scales are equal ) .    throughout this article
, we have emphasised the broad applicability of the idea of space - time phase coexistence by focussing on general features of the models , such as microscopic reversibility and reducibility of the dynamics .
we expect the behaviour described here to be generic in kinetically constrained models with reducible dynamics  @xcite .
more generally , the extent to which this behaviour can be observed in real structural glass - formers remains an open question .
we thank fred van wijland for important comments on links with the ruelle formalism .
we also benefited from discussions with mauro merolle and tommy miller .
rlj was supported in part by nsf grant no .
che-0543158 ; jpg by epsrc grants no .
gr / r83712/01 and no .
gr / s65074/01 , and by university of nottingham grant no .
fef 3024 ; and dc by the u. s. department of energy grant no .
de - fg03 - 87er13793 .
we calculated probability distributions for various observables in the fa model : these were obtained by a combination of transition path sampling ( tps ) @xcite and umbrella sampling @xcite .
here we give a brief description of the procedure used .
transition path sampling is a monte carlo procedure applied to trajectories of a dynamical system ( a trajectory is a particular realisation of the dynamics ) .
we use it to efficiently sample restricted ensembles of trajectories .
the procedure is well - established @xcite , but we present some information regarding its application to the fa model for completeness .
suppose that we wish to sample trajectories with magnetisation @xmath72 smaller than some reference value @xmath242 .
the simplest way to do this is to generate statistically independent trajectories , accepting only those that satisfy the restriction @xmath243 .
however , if @xmath242 is much smaller than the mean of @xmath72 then this is inefficient .    instead , we can generate unbiased trajectories satisfying the restriction by deforming a set of initial trajectories , as long as the deformations satisfy detailed balance with respect to the probability distribution within the constrained ensemble of trajectories .
such deformations are called tps moves .
one possibility is to take a trajectory of length @xmath81 and keep only the part with @xmath244 with @xmath245 ; we the generate the rest of the trajectory using the dynamical rules prescribed for the system ( we use a continuous time monte carlo algorithm @xcite ) .
if the new trajectory has @xmath243 then it replaces the old one ; otherwise the move is rejected and we retain the old trajectory .
this is a `` shooting '' move @xcite .
we couple this the move with the reverse procedure in which we discard the part of the trajectory with @xmath246 and regenerate the rest of the trajectory by propagating backwards in time ( since we have detailed balance then the steady state of the fa model is invariant under time - reversal , so this is a valid way to generate unbiased trajectories ) .
in addition to these moves , we also use `` shifting '' moves @xcite in which we shift the trajectory in time , discarding the parts of the new trajectory with @xmath247 or @xmath248 .
we then regenerate the remaining parts of the new trajectory .
we find that this combination of moves is quite efficient for exploring the restricted ensembles of interest .
we use umbrella sampling @xcite to calculate probability distributions by measuring ratios such as @xmath249 where @xmath250 and @xmath251 are two cutoffs for the variable @xmath72 with @xmath252 .    consider an ensemble of all allowed trajectories for the system , with their statistical weights .
in order to measure @xmath253 we sample a restricted ensemble which contains only trajectories with @xmath254 ; these trajectories have the same weights as they would have in the original ensemble .
we then measure the probability that @xmath255 within the restricted ensemble : this probability is equal to @xmath253 .      1 .
start with a representative set of trajectories from the unrestricted ensemble .
2 .   choose an ordered set of cutoff magnetisations @xmath256 for which we will calculate the probabilities @xmath253 .
3 .   explore the unrestricted ensemble , measuring the fraction of trajectories with @xmath243 .
( this is done by sampling independent trajectories . )
once we have a good enough estimate for @xmath257 , start a restricted ensemble with trajectories satisfying @xmath243 .
typically we store @xmath258 such trajectories .
5 .   explore the restricted ensemble using tps , measuring the fraction of trajectories with @xmath259 .
typically this takes @xmath260 tps moves per ensemble member .
once we have a good enough estimate for @xmath261 , we discard all trajectories with @xmath262 and replace them by trajectories with @xmath259 .
these trajectories are generated by continuing the tps procedure and accepting all trajectories that satisfy the new constraint .
the resulting set of trajectories are not statistically independent so we equilibrate the new ensemble by allowing it to evolve from the biased initial condition .
typically we use around @xmath263 tps moves per ensemble member .
we test for equilibration by tracking the fraction of trajectories with @xmath264 , since this will be the quantity that we will measure on the next step .
we then repeat steps 5 and 6 for increasingly restricted ensembles . at each step , we measure @xmath253 .