# 1 𝑞⁢(𝑡_𝐴) versus 𝑡_𝐴 at 𝑇=0.5, 𝐵=0.4.

Comment on “Ising Spin Glasses in a Magnetic Field”

In a very interesting paper  Houdayer and Martin analyze the $`T=0`$ $`3d`$ EA spin glass with a magnetic field $`B`$. By using a new, powerful method, they determine an effective critical field $`B_c`$ (given by the crossings of their function $`r`$, the rate at which ground states change) as a function of the lattice size $`L`$. They use their results to deduce that the model is behaving like in the droplet approach and not like the mean-field theory, that implies the survival of a phase transition for finite field $`B`$. We show here, by using some unpublished data , that the very interesting method and numerical results of  are completely compatible with the behavior implied by the Replica Symmetry Breaking (RSB) theory.

In  we have introduced a dynamical approach that has allowed us to determine the value of the minimal allowed overlap, $`q_{min}`$, for the $`4d`$ EA model in a non-zero magnetic field. By establishing that this value is different from $`q_{ave}`$, the average overlap measured on medium size samples, we have shown that also in $`4d`$ the phase transition to a RSB phase survives after applying a magnetic field. We use here analogous data for the $`3d`$ case , that also clearly show the survival of the Almeida-Thouless line, to interpret the result of .

In our approach we use a large lattice (for example $`L=32`$), and we select an annealing schedule to run a Metropolis dynamics. We select a set of decreasing values of the temperature $`\{T_n\}`$, starting from high $`TT_c`$, and we spend $`n2^k`$ updating steps at each $`T_n`$ value. We compute $`q(t_A)`$, where $`t_A2^k`$, for increasing $`k`$ values. The limit for $`t_A\mathrm{}`$ of $`q(t_A)`$ is just $`q_{min}`$. The value of $`q_{ave}`$ is computed with usual equilibrium tempering simulations on smaller lattices. We show in figure (1) what happens in $`3d`$ at $`B=0.4`$ and $`T=0.5`$, where RSB is clear: the fit of the data is very precise, and gives a value of $`q_{min}`$ that clearly differs from $`q_{ave}`$. Ref.  deals with $`T=0`$, so in figure (2) we extrapolate $`q_{min}(T)`$ at $`B=0.4`$ down to $`T=0`$. A simple power fit is very good, giving $`q_{min}(T=0)=0.74`$. In terms of the percentage of different spins $`x`$ of  this means that at $`B=0.4`$ we find $`x0.13`$, corresponding to a jump with overlap $`0.74`$: in the conditions of  (where $`x=0.15`$) one expects as $`L\mathrm{}`$ a crossing of the $`r`$ curves close to $`B_c=0.4`$.

This is well compatible with the data of : their crossing point moves from $`B2.1`$ to $`B1.2`$ when $`L`$ goes from $`3`$ to $`8`$: in these conditions it is difficult to discriminate between the droplet $`B_c=0`$ and the $`B_c0.4`$ that follows from RSB. RSB predicts that $`rL^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ at small $`B`$, which is not far from the observed behavior. A main feature of short range models is that one needs very large $`L`$ values to determine the asymptotic value of $`q_{min}`$: the value of $`q_{min}`$ becomes sizably different from zero already for a small $`B`$ ($`q_{min}B^{0.3}`$ in $`4d`$ against $`q_{min}B^{\frac{2}{3}}`$ in $`d=\mathrm{}`$). This implies that the width at $`L=\mathrm{}`$ of $`P(q)`$ becomes much smaller as soon as $`B`$ is switched on, and finite volume effects become much more important. This effect is exacerbated by the presence of the very large, low $`q`$ tail of $`P(q)`$ at $`L`$ not too large (see  for the analogous $`4d`$ case), that disappears very slowly for increasing $`L`$. The new method of  is very promising, and going to larger lattices will probably allow one further verification of RSB for finite $`d`$ spin glasses.

These simulations have been run at ZIB-Berlin. We thank H. Stueben for his crucial and extensive help: without him this work would have been impossible. We acknowledge W. Janke and D. Johnston contribution in setting up this project.

E. Marinari, G. Parisi and F. Zuliani