# 1 The TRM curves after a long negative cycle sketched in the inset. The temperature at which the relaxation is measured is 𝑇=12⁢𝐾=0.72⁢𝑇_𝑔. The bold lines are reference curves corresponding to waiting at a constant temperature of 12⁢𝐾 during 𝑡_𝑤={10, 30, 100, 1000} min. The thin lines are obtained after a temperature cycling of 1000 min and temperature jumps Δ⁢𝑇={0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1⁢𝐾}. The data is courtesy of E. Vincent, see Ref. [2].

## I Theoretical approach

In order to understand the effect of temperature cyclings on the relaxation of the TRM and out of phase susceptibility of mean-field spin-glass models we have to understand the time-dependence of the auto-correlation and response functions:

$$C(t,t^{})\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\overline{s_i(t)s_i(t^{})},R(t,t^{})\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{\delta \overline{s_i(t)}}{\delta h_i(t^{})}|_{h=0}.$$
(1)   
For mean-field models, one obtains a set of coupled equations that entirely determine the dynamics of these two-point functions. The thermoremanent magnetization $`M^{\mathrm{trm}}(t,t_w)`$ at time $`t`$, after cutting off a small field at time $`t_w`$, is then expressed in terms of the integrated susceptibility $`\chi (t,t_w)`$:

$$\chi (t,t_w)=_{t_w}^t𝑑\tau R(t,\tau ),M^{\mathrm{trm}}(t,t_w)=h[\chi (t,0)\chi (t,t_w)]$$
(2)   
with $`h`$ the strength of the small dc field applied.

### A The model

For definiteness let us consider the toy model consisting of $`N`$ continuous spins with a spherical constraint $`_i^Ns_i^2(t)=N`$ and a random energy $`V(𝒔)`$ correlated as $`\overline{V(𝒔)V(𝒔^{})}=N\nu (𝒔𝒔^{}/N)`$. The statics as well as the constant temperature dynamics of this model have been solved in all detail (see Refs. \[\]). Two types of models with potential correlations such that $`1/\sqrt{\nu ^{\prime \prime }(C)}`$ is, for all $`0C1`$, concave (convex) yield very different statics (one step replica symmetry breaking versus full replica symmetry breaking) and dynamics (first order versus second order dynamical transitions) and correspond to mean-field versions of structural and spin glasses respectively. Examples that have been extensively studied in the literature are the “$`p=3`$ spherical model” for glasses, with $`\nu (C)=1/2C^3`$ (and $`(\nu ^{\prime \prime }(C))^{1/2}`$ concave) and the “$`p=2`$ plus $`p=4`$ model” for spin-glasses, with $`\nu (C)=1/2(c_1C^2+c_2C^4)`$ and $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ two constants such that $`(\nu ^{\prime \prime }(C))^{1/2}`$ be convex.

The exact equations of motion for $`C`$ and $`R`$ at times $`t>t^{}`$ are 

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C(t,t^{})}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`z(t)C(t,t^{})+{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑\tau D[C(t,\tau )]R(t^{},\tau )+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }[C(t,\tau )]C(\tau ,t^{}),`$ (3)   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R(t,t^{})}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`z(t)R(t,t^{})+{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }[C(t,\tau )]R(\tau ,t^{}),`$ (4)   
$`z(t)`$ $`=`$ $`T(t)+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \left(D[C(t,\tau )]R(t,\tau )+\mathrm{\Sigma }[C(t,\tau )]C(t,\tau )\right),`$ (5)   
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(t,\tau )D^{}[C(t,\tau )]R(t,\tau )`$, $`D^{}[C]=_CD[C]`$ and $`D[C]=\nu ^{}(C)`$. The function $`z(t)`$ is a Lagrange multiplier that enforces the spherical constraint. We shall concentrate on the spin glass-like case that corresponds to a concave random energy correlation. We shall briefly discuss the structural glass-like case at the end of this Section and explain why it does not show large asymmetry effects. Let us recall the constant temperature solution for the mean-field spin-glass models.

One of the salient features of the relaxation of mean-field spin-glasses below the dynamic critical temperature $`T_d`$ is the presence of infinitely many (two-time) scales organised in a hierarchical way. In the low temperature phase the two-point correlation and response depend on the two times involved. The form of the relaxation is usually analyzed by looking at these functions at fixed (but large) waiting time in terms of the time difference $`\tau =tt_w`$. The correlation and response functions have a first fast stationary relaxation; for instance, the correlation rapidly decays from $`1`$ to $`q_{EA}`$, the Edwards-Anderson parameter. This time-scale is usually called the FDT regime, for reasons that will become clear below. For longer time-differences the relaxation continues at a waiting-time dependent speed. Furthermore, if one imagines the subsequent decay of the correlation as taking place in infinitesimal steps, each step takes much longer than the previous one. Indeed, in the limit of large waiting time each infinitesimal step implies a period of time that is infinitely longer than the previous one and these time-scales get completely separated. The same separation of time scales characterizes the decay of the response.

The sharp separation of time-scales allows us to split the correlations in a fast part $`C^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{})`$, going from one at equal times to $`q_0`$ at very distant times, and a slow part $`C_{q_0}(t,t^{})`$, going from $`C_{q_0}(t,t)=q_0`$ and tending to zero at even more distant times. The point at which we split the correlation is chosen arbitrarily provided it satisfies $`q_0q_{EA}`$. Correspondingly we separate the response in a fast and a slow part. We then have

$`C(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`C_{q_0}(t,t^{})+C^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{})q_0,`$ (6)   
$`R(t,t^{})`$ $`=`$ $`R_{q_0}(t,t^{})+R^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{}).`$ (7)   
Since $`C_{q_0}`$ ($`R_{q_0}`$) is infinitely slower than $`C^\mathrm{f}`$ ($`R^\mathrm{f}`$) their time evolution can be characterized as follows: for all times such that $`C^\mathrm{f}`$ changes $`C_{q_0}`$ is just constant and equal to $`q_0`$. Instead, in the time-regime in which $`C_{q_0}`$ varies $`C^\mathrm{f}`$ has achieved its asymptotic value $`q_0`$ and does not further evolve.

Note that the time-scale separation is achieved only in the large waiting-time limit. This is the crucial ingredient for the argument we shall use to show that Eqs. (3)-(5) capture the phenomenology of temperature cyclings. We believe that the effects disussed in the Introduction have not been clearly observed numerically because the times explored were inevitably very short and the time-scales could not be sufficiently separated.

As we shall show, the change in time-dependence of the fast and slow parts of $`C`$ and $`R`$ under a temperature jump are very different. The slow parts $`C_{q_0}`$ and $`R_{q_0}`$ are modified through a smooth time-reparametrization. The fast parts $`C^\mathrm{f}`$ and $`R^\mathrm{f}`$ behave as the correlation and response of an effective model with a critical temperature precisely equal to $`T^+`$. The temperature jumps have a strong effect on the fast parts and this effect is very different depending on the sign of the change.

The other salient feature of the low-temperature dynamics of mean-field spin-glasses is the violation of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem (FDT) and, most importantly, the generalized form that the relation between correlation and response takes.

A very useful way to quantify the fluctuation-dissipation relation that holds out of equilibrium is given by the relation between the integrated response $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ and the correlation $`C(t,t_w)`$. At fixed and large $`t_w`$, one constructs a plot of $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ vs $`C(t,t_w)`$ using $`t`$ as a parameter. This is shown in Fig. 3 for two temperatures $`T^+`$ and $`T^{}`$. For each temperature the $`\chi `$ vs. $`C`$ curve consists of two parts:

* A straight line of slope minus the inverse temperature. This corresponds to the fast time regime where the FDT holds and $`C`$ decays from $`1`$ to $`q_{EA}`$. We call this time-regime the FDT regime.
* A curve given by

$`f(C)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu ^{\prime \prime }(C)}}}.`$ (8)   
This corresponds to the slower time-regimes where the FDT is violated and $`C`$ decays from $`q_{EA}`$ to $`0`$ in a waiting-time dependent manner.

For temperature $`T^+`$ the $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot follows the straight line of gradient $`1/T^+`$ from $`(1,0)`$ to $`(q_0,\chi _0)`$ and then the curve $`f(C)`$ up to $`(0,\chi ^{\mathrm{}})`$. For temperature $`T^{}`$ it is given by the straight line of gradient $`1/T^{}`$ from $`(1,0)`$ to $`(q_1,\chi _1)`$ and then the curve $`f(C)`$ up to $`(0,\chi ^{\mathrm{}})`$. The Edwards-Anderson parameters are $`q_1`$ and $`q_0`$, respectively. The two extreme cases are $`T=0`$ and $`T=T_c`$ (the critical temperature). The former corresponds to a vertical line starting at $`(1,0)`$ that matches the curve $`f(C)`$ at $`C=1`$ and then follows it up to $`(0,\chi ^{\mathrm{}})`$. The $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot for the critical temperature is just a straight line linking $`(1,0)`$ and $`(0,\chi ^{\mathrm{}})`$ with a slope $`1/T_c`$.

The remarkable fact of this family of models is that the curved segment from $`(q_0,\chi _0)`$ to $`(0,\chi ^{\mathrm{}})`$ is the same for the temperatures below $`T^+`$. This is not a general property of mean-field spin-glass models. It holds exactly for the family of models here considered but only approximately for the Sherrington-Kirpatrick model. In the static replica approach, the corresponding property of the function $`x(q)`$ is called the “Parisi-Toulouse approximation”. The numerical evidence seems to show that this approximation works very well in finite dimensional spin-glasses, at least within numerically accessible times.

The analytic argument we shall develop below can be most easily pictured by considering Fig. 3. The range of correlation and response values in which the system has aging dynamics is given by the curved part of the plot. On changing the temperature, the straight line corresponding to the fast relaxation moves clockwise and anticlockwise like a windshield-wiper, creating and destroying the bold segment $`(q_0,\chi _0)(q_1,\chi _1)`$, thus restarting and erasing the aging scales corresponding to this interval.

### B Analysis

In the limit of large waiting times we can separate the different time-regimes as follows. The equations for the fast parts of the decay are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{})}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(z^\mathrm{f}(t)+\overline{z}(t))C^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{})+{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑\tau D[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]R^\mathrm{f}(t^{},\tau )`$ (10)   
$`+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]R^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )C^\mathrm{f}(\tau ,t^{})+\overline{z}(t),`$   
$`{\displaystyle \frac{R^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{})}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`(z^\mathrm{f}(t)+\overline{z}(t))R^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{})+{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]R^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )R^\mathrm{f}(\tau ,t^{}),`$ (11)   
$`z^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`T(t)+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \left(D[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]+D^{}[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )\right)R^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau ).`$ (12)   
The equations for the slow parts of the decay are

$`small`$ $`=`$ $`\left(z^\mathrm{f}(t)+\overline{z}(t){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]R^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )\right)C_{q_0}(t,t^{})`$ (15)   
$`+\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t^{})D[C_{q_0}(t,t^{})]+{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑\tau D[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]R_{q_0}(t^{},\tau )`$   
$`+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]R_{q_0}(t,\tau )C_{q_0}(\tau ,t^{}),`$   
$`small`$ $`=`$ $`\left(z^\mathrm{f}(t)+\overline{z}(t)D^{}[C_{q_0}(t,t^{})]\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t^{}){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]R^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )\right)R_{q_0}(t,t^{})`$ (17)   
$`+{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]R_{q_0}(t,\tau )R_{q_0}(\tau ,t^{}),`$   
$`\overline{z}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau \left(D[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]+D^{}[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]C_{q_0}(t,\tau )\right)R_{q_0}(t,\tau ).`$ (18)   
The input of the slow scale on the fast one is given by the one-time quantity $`\overline{z}(t)`$. The fast scale influences the slow one through three factors: $`z^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ defined in Eq. (12), $`\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ defined as

$`\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau R^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau ),`$ (19)   
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau R^\mathrm{f}(\tau ,t),`$ (20)   
and the last term in the parenthesis of Eqs. (15) and (17). One can eliminate the dependence on this last factor by using the relation

$`small\left(z^\mathrm{f}(t)+\overline{z}(t){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )]R^\mathrm{f}(t,\tau )\right)q_0+\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)D[q_0]+\overline{z}(t)`$ (21)   
that follows from Eq. (15) evaluated at

$$t^{}tC_{q_0}(t,t^{})q_0.$$
(22)   
After inserting the relation (21) in Eqs. (15) and (17) one has the following set of slow equations

$`small`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_0}}(\overline{z}(t)+\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)D[q_0])C_{q_0}(t,t^{})+{\displaystyle _0^t^{}}𝑑\tau D[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]R_{q_0}(t^{},\tau )`$ (24)   
$`+\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t^{})D[C_{q_0}(t,t^{})]+{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]R_{q_0}(t,\tau )C_{q_0}(\tau ,t^{}),`$   
$`small`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q_0}}(\overline{z}(t)+\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)D[q_0])R_{q_0}(t,t^{})+\stackrel{~}{c}hi^\mathrm{f}(t^{})D^{}[C_{q_0}(t,t^{})]R_{q_0}(t,t^{})`$ (26)   
$`+{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑\tau D^{}[C_{q_0}(t,\tau )]R_{q_0}(t,\tau )R_{q_0}(\tau ,t^{}),`$   
together with Eq. (18) for $`\overline{z}(t)`$. The effect of the fast scales on the slow one is then only given by $`z^\mathrm{f}(t)`$, $`\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{f}(t)`$.

At constant temperature the quantities $`\overline{z}(t)`$, $`\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ tend to the following limits

$$\overline{z}(t)\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}},\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)\chi _0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }^\mathrm{f}(t)\chi _0.$$
(27)   
As a consequence of the independence of temperature of $`\chi (C)`$ if $`C<q_{EA}`$, see Fig. 3, neither $`\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}}`$ nor $`\chi _0`$ depend on the temperature.

Consider now the temperature cycling experiment. We consider the effect on the slow and fast parts separately and denote the correlation after the cycle

$$C^{\mathrm{cycle}}(t,t^{})=C_{q_0}^{\mathrm{rep}}(t,t^{})+\widehat{C}^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{}).$$
(28)   
The first term is the slow part while the second is the fast part. Similarly, for the TRM:

$$M^{\mathrm{cycle}}(t,t^{})=M_{q_0}^{\mathrm{rep}}(t,t^{})+\widehat{M}^\mathrm{f}(t,t^{}).$$
(29)   
Under the assumption that in the presence of the cycling $`C_{q_0}`$ and $`R_{q_0}`$ are still slower than $`C^\mathrm{f}`$ and $`R^\mathrm{f}`$ and are affected at most by time-reparametrisations, an assumption whose consistency has to be checked, $`\overline{z}(t)`$ remains constant and equal to $`\overline{z}^{\mathrm{}}`$ throughout the cycle. The function $`\chi ^\mathrm{f}(t)`$ stabilises to the temperature-independent value $`\chi _0`$ soon after each temperature change on a time-scale that is very short compared to any aging times since it is the relaxation of a one time-quantity. Apart from a short pulse, proportional to $`\chi (t)\chi _0`$, the slow equation feels the effect of the temperature cycling only through the small matching terms, that we collected on the left-hand-side of Eqs. (15) and (17) under the name of “small”. These affect only reparametrizations, consistently with the initial assumption in the discussion.

Hence, the slow parts of the correlation and response are modified by the cycling through a smooth change in the speed of evolution, i.e. a time-reparametrisation. This is more precisely stated by studying the change of the slow parts in each time-scale. With this purpose, let us denote $`C_\alpha ^{T^+}(t,t^{})`$ and $`R_\alpha ^{T^+}(t,t^{})`$ the correlation and response function in the time-scale labelled $`\alpha `$ for a system aging at constant temperature $`T^+`$. In the presence of a temperature cycle between $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ each of these is modified according to

$`C_\alpha ^{\mathrm{cycle}}(t,t^{})=C_\alpha ^{T^+}(h_\alpha (t),h_\alpha (t^{})),R_\alpha ^{\mathrm{cycle}}(t,t^{})=_t^{}h_\alpha (t^{})R_\alpha ^{T^+}(h_\alpha (t),h_\alpha (t^{})).`$   
Though the calculation of $`h_\alpha (t)`$ is beyond our analytical means, we know that it has three distinct behaviours depending on the relation between $`t^{}`$, $`t`$ and $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$. Obviously, $`h(t)=t`$ if $`t<t_1`$; $`h_\alpha (t)`$ has inflections around $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$; and we expect $`_th_\alpha (t)1`$ for $`tt_2`$ when the system forgot the cycle, in accordance with the weak long-term memory property. Furthermore, we expect that during the period $`t_1<t<t_2`$ the dynamics slows down, $`_th_\alpha (t)<1`$, if we cool down the sample, while the dynamics accelerates, $`_th_\alpha (t)>1`$, if we heat the sample. In Eq. (28) we have generically denoted the reparametrized slow part $`C_{q_0}^{\mathrm{rep}}`$.

The fast equations (10)-(12) decouple from the slow equation and correspond to an effective model in a constant field, since one can check that the (essentially constant) term $`\overline{z}(t)`$ that appears in the fast equation can be looked upon as the effect of an effective magnetic field. In fact, $`T^+`$ is the critical temperature of the model in the presence of such a field.

The temperature of the effective fast model is cycled following any of the two experimental protocols between its subcritical temperature $`T^{}`$ and its critical temperature $`T^+`$. This is why the effect of the temperature change is stronger on the fast part of the correlations and heavily depends on the sign of the change.

The structural-glass models in which $`(\nu ^{\prime \prime }(C))^{1/2}`$ is concave have a quite simpler isothermal dynamic behaviour below its transition. They decay in only two two-time scales with a first stationary decay towards $`q_{EA}`$ and a subsequent slower non-stationary decay towards zero. For these models we are not allowed to separate the correlation and response in the additive way proposed in Eq. (7) for any $`q_0`$ and all the analysis presented in this seccion simply does not apply.

## II Comparison with the experimental results

Let us now discuss the experimental TRM curves in the light of these results.

### A Negative temperature cycling

The straight line in the $`\chi `$ vs. $`C`$ curve presented in Fig. 3 moves clockwise and then anti-clockwise to its original position. At the end of the cycle the bold part of the curve disappeared from the $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot. At $`t=0`$ the fast model is quenched down to its critical temperature $`T^+`$, and rapidly equilibrates. At time $`t_1`$ it is further quenched to its subcritical temperature $`T^{}`$ and starts aging with the effective waiting time $`t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}=t_wt_1`$. Finally, at time $`t_2`$ the fast model is brought again to the critical temperature $`T^+`$, and it rapidly reequilibrates. The fast part has only made an excursion into its glassy phase through its quench to $`T^{}`$ but, since it has been taken back to its critical temperature $`T^+`$, it has quickly forgotten it.

One concludes that there is then an effective waiting-time $`t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}`$

$$t_1+t_wt_2t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Delta }T,t_1,t_2,t_w)t_w$$
(30)   
that characterizes the evolution of the whole system, with the time spent in the lower temperature partially contributing to $`t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}(\mathrm{\Delta }T,t_1,t_2,t_w)`$.

Since the effects of negative cooling cycles are small, the fraction of time spent at $`T^{}`$ needs to be rather large to observe them. Fig. 1 displays a set of curves measured after performing negative temperature cyclings of different magnitude (thin lines) and compares them to four isothermal curves associated to smaller waiting times. It is clear from the figure that the curves associated to each temperature cycling can be completely superposed to a reference isothermal curve (compare, for example, the curve for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=T^{}T^+=0.3K`$, $`t_1=15`$ min, $`t_2=1015`$ min and $`t_w=1030`$ min with the isothermal curve for $`t_w=100`$ min). The system kept a memory of the evolution during $`t_1`$ when the temperature is raised back to its original value $`T^+`$. The time spent at the low temperature has a partial effect. There is an effective waiting time $`t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ for the full system that verifies Eq. (30). The effective waiting time $`t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ decreases when one cools down the system to a lower temperature until the effect of the time spent at the lower temperature becomes completely negligeable. In the experimental curves this happens for $`\mathrm{\Delta }T=1K`$. In this case, the effective aging time is simply $`t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}=t_1+t_wt_2=30`$ min.

### B Positive temperature cycling

In this case the straight line in Fig. 3 moves first anti-clockwise and then clockwise, exposing at the end of the cycle the bold segment of the curve.

As already discussed, the slow part of the correlation is only modified by a time-reparametrization and, since the temperature excursion has a short duration, it is hardly affected at all.

The protocol is, from the point of view of the fast model, as follows: at time $`t=0`$ it is quenched to a subcritical temperature $`T^{}`$ and let age until $`t_1`$. At this time it is taken to its critical temperature $`T^+`$ until time $`t_2`$, fully reinitializing its age. Finally, it is quenched again into its glassy phase at time $`t_2`$ and it starts aging again. It is then clear that the fast model has an age $`t_w^{\mathrm{eff}}=t_wt_2<t_w`$.

The observed TRM curves are then a superposition of a slow part, which is essentially unaffected by the temperature cycle, plus a fast part that is completely reinitialized. The relative magnitude of fast and slow parts depends upon the height of the positive excursion. Thus, for given $`T^{}`$, the larger $`T^+`$ the faster the total decay of the TRM as shown in Fig. 2 where the TRM curves for temperature cyclings of the same duration but different heights are displayed.

Having the whole decay of the TRM curves as a function of the time-difference $`tt_w`$ one can discuss them in great detail. One easily notices from the curves in Fig. 2 that one cannot associate an effective waiting time to the full TRM decay after the cycling, consistently with the the additive solution obtained analytically for the rejuvenation process.

Within the analytic framework, the larger the temperature $`T^+`$, the smaller the $`q_0`$ and $`C_{q_0}`$, implying that the fast part of the correlation and response that is completely refreshed (and hence the total rejuvenation) is larger, as we see in Fig. 2.

It has been stressed that the TRM curve after a positive temperature cycle at first coincides with the isothermal TRM curve of waiting time $`t_wtt_2`$, the difference only becoming manifest after rather long times. If one compares the TRM curves in Fig. 2 for several values of $`T^+`$ with the isothermal curve for $`t_w=30`$ min, one observes that the departure from this reference curve is achieved later for the larger $`T^+`$s.

This is precisely what we would expect from the many-scales picture: Two protocols with the same $`T^{}`$ and slightly different high temperatures $`T^+`$ and $`T^+^{}`$ (associated with $`q_0`$ and $`q_0^{}`$) will differ in the refreshment of the scales of $`C`$ and $`M`$ with $`q_0<C<q_0^{}`$, and these are slower the smaller $`q_0`$. Hence, the difference in TRM between the two protocols will only show up at long times, the higher $`T^+`$.

This effect should become more and more marked for longer experiments.

## III Field Cyclings

Field cyclings at constant temperature are known to yield rather large reinitializations in the out of phase susceptibility both on increasing and on decreasing the field. Although we have not done a full analysis for the field cycling experiments, we may hint the reason why the arguments we used to justify a large asymmetry in temperature jump experiments do not carry through unaltered to the field cycling case.

The effect of a time-dependent field $`h(t)`$ on the dynamic equations is to add a term

$$A(t,t^{})=h(t)_0^t^{}𝑑\tau h(\tau )R(t^{},\tau )$$
(31)   
to Eq. (3), and a term $`A(t,t)`$ to Eq. (5). In the constant field situation, these terms have the effect of eliminating the slowest scales. The $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot of Fig. 3 for a constant field $`h`$ coincides with the one for $`h=0`$ but terminates at an $`h`$-dependent point $`(q_0,\chi _0)`$. The most outstanding effect of switching on (switching off) a field is then to erase (create) the slowest scales between $`(0,\chi ^{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`(q_0,\chi _0)`$. Note that this is already very different from the effect of temperature changes that mainly affect the fastest scales in the problem.

One could then ask if a system that has been evolving at zero field and is suddendly taken to finite $`h`$ does preserve the fast parts $`C^\mathrm{f}`$ and $`R^\mathrm{f}`$ without reinitialization (just the mirror image of what an increase  of temperature does). In fact, we can propose that such a solution exists, and see where the argument takes us. We hence assume a separation into a fast and a slow parts of the correlation and response just as in Eq. (7) with the value $`q_0`$ chosen to be the smallest possible correlation for a field $`h`$.

If we now assume that on turning on the field the fast evolution remains essentially unaltered, while the slow evolution in $`C_{q_0}`$ remains slow and finally tends to $`q_0`$ (as in a constant field case), we can separate out the fast part. The fast equations so obtained are just like Eqs. (10)-(12) with additional terms which (just as in the temperature cycling case happened for the slow parts) are constant up to, and long after the field jump. The difference is that now the “bump” in this otherwise constant factors and terms is no longer short-lasted with respect to the fast times, precisely because it comes from the slow equation and from the term (31), which has waiting time effects itself.

Hence, the initial assumption that a decoupled equation for the fast part could be found does not hold, at least in the manner it did for the slow parts in the temperature cycling case. The fast parts must be altered by the field cycling in an important way implying no big difference between switching on and off the field.

## IV Proposal for new experimental measurements

The obvious direct way of constructing the $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot is to perform independent measurements of the time-correlation of the magnetization noise $`C(t,t_w)`$ and the integrated response $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ at a given temperature and field. One can a posteriori check the independence on temperature and field of these curves.

If the assumption of independence of temperature and field of the $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ curve in its aging part holds true, this curve can be simply obtained in a manner that is much more simple experimentally as it does not involve noise measurements and only ac susceptibilities. Indeed, let us define the quantity $`y(T,h)`$ as follows

$$y(T,h)\underset{\omega 0}{lim}\underset{t_w\mathrm{}}{lim}\chi ^{}(\omega ,t_w)=\frac{q_dq_{EA}(T)}{T}.$$
(32)   
The Edwards-Anderson parameter $`q_{EA}(T)`$ would be then independent of the field $`h`$ below the de Almeida-Thouless line (or “pseudo de Almeida-Thouless line” if it is only a dynamic crossover) and

$$y(T,h)=y(T).$$
(33)   
The parameter $`q_d`$ corresponds to

$$q_d\underset{T0}{lim}q_{EA}(T).$$
(34)   
Equation (33) can be easily checked experimentally.

Another related test is to measure the dc susceptibility

$$\chi ^{\mathrm{}}(T,h)=\underset{t_w\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}\chi (t,t_w)$$
(35)   
at constant field $`h`$, presumably obtainable from the field-cooled experimental data, and check if it is independent of temperature everywhere below the (pseudo) Almeida-Thouless line. There is quite a bit of evidence in this direction in the literature.

One can then extract the curved part of the $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot of Fig. 3, that we called $`f(C)`$ from the set of equations

$`C`$ $`=`$ $`q_dTy(T),`$ (36)   
$`f(C)`$ $`=`$ $`y(T),`$ (37)   
using $`T`$ as a parameter.

Once (and if) the validity of the approximation is verified, one can use the $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot so obtained to check the consistency of the present reasoning for the cycling experiments. For example, in the positive cycling experiments the difference in TRM between the isothermal and the cycled experiment just after the cycle should be equal to the difference in height in the $`\chi `$ vs $`C`$ plot of the intersection of the straight lines corresponding to $`T^{}`$ and $`T^+`$ (this is best seen by looking at Fig. 3). This non-trivial relation can be checked experimentally.

## V Conclusions

While it is gratifying to be able to reproduce the qualitative experimental features analytically, we believe one should not hasten to declare that this is evidence for the mean-field scenario holding strictly. Thus, infinitely separated time-scales could in real life be just very separated scales, the Almeida-Thouless line could be just a dynamic crossover, etc.

The derivation in this paper is the first one done for a microscopic model that on one hand captures the main features of the experiments and on the other hand demonstrates the difference in the behaviour of glasses and spin-glasses. Although our calculation has relied on a particular model we believe that it will carry through to all classical mean-field spin-glass models.

There is however a problem. A satisfying scaling of the (isothermal) experimental susceptibility and TRM data simultaneously was presented in Ref. \[\]. Surprisingly enough, this scaling has only two time-regimes as opposed to the many time-scales that we here invoked to reproduce analytically the experimental results for temperature cyclings within mean-field. If the scaling used in Ref. \[\] turns out to hold for all times then the hierarchical scenario would not apply and some drastic modification of the present understanding must be envisaged.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank E. Vincent for providing us with the experimental curves obtained in Saclay and for several years of very valuable discussions.