text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Non-equilibrium systems generally display specific features which are absent from their corresponding thermodynamically equilibrated counterparts. For example, consider a many-body system contained in a thermostat and prepared in some initial state. Then assume that the temperature of the heat bath is rapidly quenched to a different temperature $`T_1`$ and the system is then allowed to evolve freely, with the temperature fixed at $`T_1`$. In this setting, the system under study may show ageing effects, which come from the dynamical breaking of time-translation invariance, see  for reviews. Although ageing is known, since a very long time, to occur in glassy systems, similar effects have more recently also been observed for non-disordered spin systems. In simple ferromagnets such as the Ising model, ageing effects have been studied through the long-time behaviour of two-time correlation and response functions, see  and references therein. In addition, it has been proposed recently that the well-known dynamical scale invariance, associated with the ageing phenomenon (see e.g. ) in simple ferromagnets, may be generalized towards a larger group of local dynamical scale transformations . Among other results this theory leads to an explicit prediction for the time-dependent thermoremanent magnetization which has been confirmed in several distinct models .

However, current theoretical studies generally assume that the quench is infinitely rapid, or in other words that the final temperature $`T_1`$ is reached immediately. In real experiments, this condition is often far from being satisfied, see e.g. . It is therefore interesting to investigate the behaviour of a system coupled to a bath with a time-dependent temperature $`T(t)`$. Here, we shall study the long-time behaviour of a system initially prepared in a fully disordered state and brought at time $`t=0`$ into contact with a thermal bath which evolves from an initial temperature $`T_0`$ to a final temperature $`T_1`$ in a finite or infinite interval of time. In the present paper, we shall study the following form of a time-dependent temperature

$$T(t)=T_1+(T_0T_1)\mathrm{exp}\left(t/\tau \right)$$
(1.1)
where $`\tau `$ is a given relaxation time which sets an external time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{ext}}=\tau `$. Certainly, the long-time behaviour of a statistical system will depend, besides on the external time scale $`\tau `$, also on the internal time scale(s) $`\tau _{\mathrm{int}}(T)`$ which arise from the internal self-organization of the system, governed by the microscopic interactions. Two basic cases should be expected. First, if $`\tau _{\mathrm{int}}\tau `$, the system simply relaxes towards equilibrium at the final temperature $`T_1`$. On the hand, if $`\tau _{\mathrm{int}}\tau `$, the system is said to be clamped at the external temperature $`T(t)`$ and its time history will depend on the properties of the external heat bath. While for times $`t\tau \tau _{\mathrm{int}}`$ the system should have simply relaxed back to equilibrium, new effects might be expected to occur in the regime $`\tau t\tau _{\mathrm{int}}`$ and this may allow to distinguish between these two cases. The time-dependence as specified in eq. (1.1) should contain the basic ingredients which are needed for a conceptual understanding of this kind of phenomenon.333Originally, we became interested in this problem through the consideration of the fragmentation of microscopic systems like atomic nuclei where it has often been assumed that the detected fragments are at thermodynamic equilibrium and fixed temperature . However, such descriptions do not take care of the time evolution of these systems which expand in space over a finite time interval and cool down before they are detected.

One of the central questions is whether/when under the conditions just described the system may evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium. A convenient way to measure the distance of a system from equilibrium is through the fluctuation-dissipation ratio

$$X(t,s)=TR(t,s)\left(\frac{C(t,s)}{s}\right)^1$$
(1.2)
where $`C(t,s)`$ and $`R(t,s)`$ are the two-time auto-correlation and autoresponse functions, respectively (see section 2 for the precise definitions). At equilibrium, the fluctuation-dissipation theorem states that $`X(t,s)=1`$. Therefore, it is an important question under which physical conditions equilibrium can be reached. This question has received much attention in glasses, see  for recent theoretical and  for recent experimental examples. Understanding this point must come before the more complicated questions relating to an eventual ageing behaviour can be addressed.

In order to obtain explicit analytical results, we shall study the exactly solvable kinetic spherical model with a time-dependent bath temperature, to be defined precisely in section 2. For constant temperatures, this model has been studied in great detail in the past, either in the context of continuum field theories  or else in the form of a lattice model . It is well-established that the spherical model, despite its technical simplicity, still contains the main physical features encountered in other systems (such as the Ising model) which might be considered to be closer to the experimental reality but which no longer permit an exact analytical solution. In particular, results found from the spherical model in $`d<4`$ space dimensions are known to be different from the predictions of mean-field theory. In this paper, we shall be concerned exclusively with the question under what condition a stationary or quasi-stationary state of the model may be considered to be an equilibrium state in the sense that $`X(t,s)=1`$. This question can be studied by restricting attention to the high-temperature phase such that the system is brought into contact with a heat bath at the initial temperature $`T_0`$. The heat bath then cools down to the final temperature $`T_1`$ such that both are above the critical temperature, viz. $`T_0>T_1>T_c>0`$ and the model remains in the disordered high-temperature phase. In that phase, there is no ageing behaviour to be expected. We leave the question of a possible ageing behaviour in systems coupled to a time-dependent bath for future work.

The content of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we introduce the model and obtain the formal exact solution. The equal-time correlator is analysed in section 3 and we discuss several new non-trivial time and length scales which arise. Two-time quantities and the fluctuation-dissipation ratio are studied in section 4 and the results are generalized to include the clamped case in section 5. Section 6 presents our conclusions.

## 2 Model and formalism

We begin by recalling the definition of the kinetic spherical model, using the formalism as exposed in . We consider a system of time-dependent classical spin variables $`S_𝒙(t)`$ located on the sites $`𝒙`$ of a $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice. They may take arbitrary real values subject only to the spherical constraint

$$\underset{𝒙}{}S_𝒙(t)^2=𝒩$$
(2.1)
where $`𝒩`$ is the number of sites of the lattice. The spherical model Hamiltonian reads

$$=J\underset{<𝒙,𝒚>}{}S_𝒙(t)S_𝒚(t)$$
(2.2)
where the sum extends over nearest-neighbour pairs only. In the following we choose units such that $`J=1`$. The system is supposed to be translation-invariant in all directions. The kinetics is assumed to be described in terms of a Langevin equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}S_𝒙(t)}{\mathrm{d}t}=\underset{𝒚(𝒙)}{}S_𝒚(t)(2d+𝔷(t))S_𝒙(t)+\eta _𝒙(t)$$
(2.3)
where the sum over $`𝒚`$ extends over the nearest neighbours of $`𝒙`$ and $`\eta _𝒙(t)`$ corresponds to a stochastic force which describes the action of an environment which lies outside of the nearest-neighbour range. Physically, this means that the model is assumed to be immersed into a heat bath. The resulting forces are supposed to be gaussian and thus to be characterized by an ensemble average which is zero, viz. $`\eta _𝒙(t)=0`$ and a second moment which reads

$$\eta _𝒙(t)\eta _𝒚(t^{})=2T(t)\delta _{𝒙,𝒚}\delta (tt^{})$$
(2.4)
At time $`t=0`$ the system is brought into contact with the heat bath. We assume in this work that the temperature of the heat bath decreases from $`T_0`$ to $`T_1`$ with a characteristic relaxation time $`\tau `$ according to

$$T(t)=T_1+(T_0T_1)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau )$$
(2.5)
The choice of this temporal behaviour is dictated by computational simplicity. In addition, as we shall see, it already contains the basic effects which will also be present for more general thermal histories. For sufficiently large values of the initial bath temperature $`T_0`$, the typical correlation lengths are of the order of a lattice constant or less. Then for all practical purposes, the system is effectively uncorrelated. Finally, the function $`𝔷(t)`$ is fixed by the spherical constraint (2.1) and has to be determined. In order to do this, we follow the standard procedure of replacing the spherical constraint by its mean value. It can be shown that this does not change results if the infinite-system limit $`𝒩\mathrm{}`$ is taken before the long-time limit $`t\mathrm{}`$ .

By a Fourier transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{f}(𝒒)=\underset{𝒓}{}f_𝒓e^{\mathrm{i}𝒒𝒓},f_𝒓=(2\pi )^d_{}d𝒒\stackrel{~}{f}(𝒒)e^{\mathrm{i}𝒒𝒓}$$
(2.6)
where the integral is taken over the first Brillouin zone $``$, the Fourier-transformed spin variable $`\stackrel{~}{S}(𝒒,t)`$ becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(𝒒,t)=\frac{e^{\omega (𝒒)t}}{\sqrt{g(t)}}\left[\stackrel{~}{S}(𝒒,0)+_0^tdt^{}e^{\omega (𝒒)t^{}}\sqrt{g(t^{})}\stackrel{~}{\eta }(𝒒,t^{})\right]$$
(2.7)
with the dispersion relation

$$\omega (𝒒)=2\underset{i=1}{\overset{d}{}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}(q_i)\right)$$
(2.8)
and we have also defined

$$g(t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^tdt^{}𝔷(t^{})\right)$$
(2.9)
Clearly, the time-dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{S}(𝒒,t)`$ and any correlators will be given in terms of the function $`g=g(t)`$.

We now derive the expressions for the correlators and response functions for an arbitrary thermal history $`T=T(t)`$. We begin with the equal-time spin-spin correlation function

$$C_{𝒙,𝒚}(t)=C_{𝒙𝒚}(t)=S_𝒙(t)S_𝒚(t)$$
(2.10)
We obtain the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)`$ from

$$\stackrel{~}{S}(𝒒,t)\stackrel{~}{S}(𝒒^{},t^{})=(2\pi )^d\delta (𝒒+𝒒^{})\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)$$
(2.11)
and immediately find

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)=\frac{e^{2\omega (𝒒)t}}{g(t)}\left[\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,0)+2_0^tdt^{}T(t^{})e^{2\omega (𝒒)t^{}}g(t^{})\right]$$
(2.12)
If we assume uncorrelated initial conditions444The treatment of correlated initial conditions, following the lines of , presents no additional difficulty.

$$C_{𝒙,𝒚}(0)=\delta _{𝒙𝒚,\mathrm{𝟎}}$$
(2.13)
as we shall always do in the following, we have $`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,0)=1`$. Because of the spherical constraint (2.2) and spatial translation invariance, the autocorrelator must satisfy

$$C_\mathrm{𝟎}(t)=_{}d𝒒\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)=S_𝒙(t)^2=1$$
(2.14)
This in turn fixes $`𝔷(t)`$ or via (2.9) the function $`g(t)`$ as the solution of a Volterra integral equation

$$g(t)=f(t)+2_0^tdt^{}T(t^{})f(tt^{})g(t^{})$$
(2.15)
where

$$f(t)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}_{}d𝒒e^{2\omega (𝒒)t}=\left(e^{4t}I_0(4t)\right)^d$$
(2.16)
and $`I_0`$ is a modified Bessel function . Once we have found the solution of eq. (2.15), the correlation function can be obtained.

Before doing this, we now give the expression for the two-time correlation function $`C_{𝒙𝒚}(t,s)=S_𝒙(t)S_𝒚(s)`$ and the two-time response function $`R_𝒙(t,s)`$. The calculation follows entirely standard lines  and we merely quote the result. In Fourier space

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t,s)=\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,s)e^{\omega (𝒒)(ts)}\sqrt{\frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}$$
(2.17)
and where $`g=g(t)`$ is the solution of eq. (2.15). Similarly, the response function is obtained in the usual way  by adding a small magnetic field term $`\delta =_𝒙h_𝒙(t)S_𝒙(t)`$ to the Hamiltonian. We easily find in Fourier space

$$\stackrel{~}{R}(𝒒,t,s)=\frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{S}(𝒒,t)}{\delta \stackrel{~}{h}(𝒒,s)}|_{h_𝒓=0}=e^{\omega (𝒒)(ts)}\sqrt{\frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}$$
(2.18)
From these expressions, the autocorrelation function $`C(t,s)=C_\mathrm{𝟎}(t,s)`$ and the autoresponse function $`R(t,s)=R_\mathrm{𝟎}(t,s)`$ can be obtained by integrating over the momentum $`𝒒`$.

Summarising, the physically interesting correlation and response functions are given by equations (2.12,2.17,2.18) together with the constraint eq. (2.15), for any time-dependent temperature $`T=T(t)`$. This constitutes the main result of the general formalism.

In order to solve eq. (2.15) explicitly, we now use the specific form eq. (2.5) of the time-dependent temperature $`T=T(t)`$. Through a Laplace transformation

$$\overline{f}(p)=_0^{\mathrm{}}dtf(t)e^{pt}$$
(2.19)
eq. (2.15) is transformed into a linear difference equation

$$\overline{g}(p)=\overline{f}(p)+2T_1\overline{f}(p)\overline{g}(p)+2(T_0T_1)\overline{f}(p)\overline{g}(p+1/\tau )$$
(2.20)
The analytic solution of this equation allows to study the behaviour of the correlation and response functions defined above. Two limit cases correspond to constant temperatures and have been analysed in detail in the literature . First, in the limit $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, we have a constant temperature $`T=T_0`$ and the final temperature $`T_1`$ is never reached. Second, the limit $`\tau 0`$ corresponds to an infinitely rapid quench to the constant end temperature $`T=T_1`$. We are interested in the behaviour between these two extremes. The solution $`\overline{g}(p)`$ of eq. (2.20) can be cast in the form

$$\overline{g}(p)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(T_0T_1)^n\overline{g}_n(p)$$
(2.21)
where

$$\overline{g}_n(p)=2^n\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{g}^{(0)}(T_1,p+\frac{k}{\tau })$$
(2.22)
Here $`\overline{g}^{(0)}(T_1,p)`$ is the solution as given by Godrèche and Luck  for a fixed temperature $`T=T_1`$

$$\overline{g}^{(0)}(T_1,p)=\frac{\overline{f}(p)}{12T_1\overline{f}(p)}$$
(2.23)
We shall turn in the next section to a detailed analysis of the properties of the physical observables coming from this solution.

## 3 The equal-time correlator

We now analyse the long-time behaviour of the equal-time spin-spin correlation function $`C_𝒙(t)`$ or rather its Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)`$. Throughout this paper, we shall restrict ourselves to the situation where both the initial temperature $`T_0`$ and the final temperature $`T_1`$ are above the critical point and the systems is cooled from $`T_0`$ to $`T_1`$, viz.

$$T_0>T_1>T_c$$
(3.1)
The equilibrium critical temperature is given by $`T_c=(2\overline{f}(0))^1`$, see , and is non-zero for $`d>2`$. As we have seen in the last section, the time-dependence of the correlators follows from the form of the function $`g(t)`$. In turn, the behaviour of $`g(t)`$ can be described in terms of the singularities of its Laplace transform $`\overline{g}(p)`$. From eqs. (2.21,2.22), these singularities are entirely given in terms of the singularities of the constant-temperature solution $`\overline{g}^{(0)}(T_1,p)`$ of eq. (2.23).

In the high-temperature phase, the singularities of $`g^{(0)}(T_1,t)`$ can be analysed as follows . Consider the function

$$\overline{f}(p)=\frac{1}{(2\pi )^d}_{}d𝒒\frac{1}{p+2\omega (𝒒)}$$
(3.2)
which is monotonously decreasing with $`p`$. Furthermore, $`\overline{f}(p)`$ is analytic in the complex $`p`$-plane except for a cut in the interval $`8dp0`$. On the other hand, if $`T_1T_c`$, the function $`\overline{g}^{(0)}(T_1,p)`$ has a simple pole at a value $`p_0`$ given by $`\overline{f}(p_0)=1/(2T_1)`$. This translates into an exponential long-time behaviour of $`g^{(0)}(T_1,t)\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _{\mathrm{eq}})`$ which defines an equilibration time

$$\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}:=\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)=\tau _0=\frac{1}{p_0}$$
(3.3)
Now, for a time-dependent temperature $`T=T(t)`$, the only possible singularities of $`\overline{g}(p)`$ are those of $`\overline{g}^{(0)}(T_1,p+k/\tau )`$ and therefore the singularities of $`\overline{g}(p)`$ with a positive real part are simple poles and occur at

$$p_k:=p_0\frac{k}{\tau }$$
(3.4)
with $`k=0,1,2,\mathrm{},k_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Here $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is the largest integer such that $`p_{k_{\mathrm{max}}}`$ is still positive. For $`k>k_{\mathrm{max}}`$, the singularities merely lead to exponentially decreasing corrections in $`g(t)`$ and do not contribute to the leading long-time behaviour we are interested in. The sequence of poles $`p_k`$ leads to the following sequence of relaxation times

$$\frac{1}{\tau _k(T_1)}=\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)}\frac{k}{\tau }$$
(3.5)
The quantities $`p_k`$ are positive for $`0kk_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and negative for $`k>k_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Hence for $`t`$ sufficiently large, i.e. $`t\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$ the leading contributions to $`g(t)`$ are of the form

$$g(t)\underset{k=0}{\overset{k_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}G_k\mathrm{exp}(t/\tau _k)$$
(3.6)
where

$$G_k=\gamma \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2^n\left(T_0T_1\right)^n\underset{j=0,jk}{\overset{n}{}}\overline{g}^{(0)}(T_1,p_0+(jk)/\tau )$$
(3.7)
and in addition

$$\gamma =\overline{f}(p_0)^2/\overline{f}^{}(p_0)$$
(3.8)
is a positive constant and the prime denotes the derivative.

Using the expression eq. (3.6) the spin-spin correlation function given by eq. (2.12) takes the following form

$`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)T_1\left({\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{k_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}G_k\mathrm{exp}(kt/\tau )\right)^1`$
$`\times `$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{\omega (𝒒)+\lambda _{\mathrm{eq}}^2}}+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{k_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_{\mathrm{}}}{\omega (𝒒)+\lambda _{\mathrm{}}^2}}e^{\mathrm{}t/\tau }+{\displaystyle \frac{T_0T_1}{T_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_{k_{\mathrm{max}}}}{\omega (𝒒)\lambda _{k_{\mathrm{max}}+1}^2}}e^{(k_{\mathrm{max}}+1)t/\tau }\right]`$
$`+`$ $`O\left(e^{2\omega (𝒒)t}\right)`$
provided $`t\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$ and where for all $`0\mathrm{}k_{\mathrm{max}}+1`$ we have defined

$$\lambda _{\mathrm{}}=+\sqrt{2|\tau _{\mathrm{}}|}=\left|\frac{2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)\tau }{\tau \mathrm{}\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)}\right|^{1/2}$$
(3.10)
In the following, we shall use the relation $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eq}}=\lambda _0=\sqrt{2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}}`$. In addition, we also used the abbreviation

$$H_k=G_k+\frac{T_0T_1}{T_1}G_{k1}$$
(3.11)
In order to understand the behaviour of $`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)`$, we note that the first term in eq. (3), which formally corresponds to $`\mathrm{}=0`$, gives the stationary contribution. In addition, there is at least one additional transient term which will disappear in the limit $`t\tau `$. The number of transient terms which are present depends on the value of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=k_{\mathrm{max}}(T_1,\tau )`$. We now discuss the various physical cases which can arise.

### 3.1 First-mode contribution – Short thermal relaxation times

The simplest case arises if $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}\tau `$, that is the bath relaxes faster than the system itself. Then $`p_0\frac{1}{\tau }0`$, that is $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$ and we have in eq. (3) $`\mathrm{}=0`$ as the only contributing mode. Therefore (assuming $`t>\tau `$ and $`t\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$)

$$\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)T_1\left(\frac{1}{\omega (𝒒)+\lambda _{\mathrm{eq}}^2(T_1)}+\frac{(T_0T_1)}{T_1}\frac{e^{t/\tau }}{\omega (𝒒)\lambda _1^2}\right)+O\left(e^{2\omega (𝒒)tt/\tau }\right)$$
(3.12)
For a physical understanding, it might be more appealing to consider the correlator in real space. In the $`1D`$ case, the result is particularly simple and becomes in the large-separation limit $`|𝒙|1`$

$$C_𝒙(t)T_1\left(\lambda _0e^{|𝒙|/\lambda _0}\frac{T_0T_1}{T_1}\lambda _1\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{|𝒙|}{\lambda _1}\right)e^{t/\tau }\right)+O\left(e^{𝒙^2/t}e^{t/\tau }\right)$$
(3.13)
Therefore, the correlator is the sum of a stationary and spatially homogeneous term and a transient term which in addition shows spatial oscillations of wavelength $`\lambda _1`$. We point out that $`\lambda _1`$ diverges when the external time scale $`\tau `$ approaches the internal equilibration time $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ from below, see eq. (3.10). In figure 1 we show the location of the line $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}=\tau `$ as the curve $`1/\tau _1=0`$ in the $`(T_1,\tau )`$-plane. The region I in figure 1 corresponds to the case $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$.

For larger values of $`\tau `$ we go over to a multimode regime which we discuss below.

### 3.2 Multimode contributions

If $`k_{\mathrm{max}}>0`$ several transient modes contribute to $`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)`$. Their contributions are quite different, however. The propagator arising in all terms is of the form

$$\frac{1}{\omega (𝒒)\pm \lambda _k^2}\stackrel{q0}{}\frac{1}{q^2\pm \lambda _k^2}$$
(3.14)
with a positive sign for $`kk_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and a negative sign for $`k=k_{\mathrm{max}}+1`$. This leads to a different spatial behaviour, in analogy with eq. (3.13) found for the case $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$ discussed above. The first $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$ terms all lead to spatially decaying contributions to $`C_𝒙(t)`$ in the large-$`|𝒙|`$ limit, where the characteristic length scale is given by $`\lambda _{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{},k_{\mathrm{max}}`$. With the exception of the $`\mathrm{}=0`$ contribution, all terms are transient and decay with a relaxation time given by $`\tau /\mathrm{}`$. In contrast, the last term, which is also transient, gives rises to a spatially oscillating term with a wave length $`\lambda _{\mathrm{osc}}:=\lambda _{k_{\mathrm{max}}+1}`$.

The behaviour of the system in the first few regimes is illustrated in figure 1. For a fixed final temperature $`T_1`$ and increasing values of the external relaxation time $`\tau `$, the system goes over from region I with only a single mode (since $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$) to region II with modes, later to region III with three modes and so on.

The behaviour of the various correlation and wave lengths is illustrated in figure 2 for the $`3D`$ case and for $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}=0.4`$, that is $`T_1=3.8363\mathrm{}`$. First, we note that the characteristic length scale $`\lambda _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ associated with the only non-transient term does not depend on the externally imposed time scale $`\tau `$. Second, the thick solid lines show the dependence of the oscillation wave length $`\lambda _{\mathrm{osc}}=\lambda _{k_{\mathrm{max}}+1}`$ on $`\tau `$. If we start with a small value of $`\tau `$ in region I and then increase $`\tau `$, $`\lambda _{\mathrm{osc}}`$ increases and finally diverges when $`\tau =\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ that is when the external time scale becomes equal to the internal equilibration time scale. If $`\tau `$ is now increased further, we enter into region II. At this point, the previous oscillating mode transforms into a spatially monotonous one which simply gives another contribution with decreases as a function on $`|𝒙|`$ and in addition, a new oscillating mode with a finite wave length appears. This new mode arise since one of the modes which in region I leads to exponentially decaying contribution to $`g(t)`$ transforms itself into an, albeit non-leading, exponentially growing contribution. Furthermore, the characteristic length of the old oscillating mode (denoted by $`\lambda _1`$ in figure 2) now decreases as a function of $`\tau `$. We now increase $`\tau `$ further until the oscillation wave length $`\lambda _{\mathrm{osc}}`$ diverges again and we therefore go over from region II into region III. At this transition point, we observe that the value of $`\lambda _1`$ agrees with the one of the new oscillation wave length for region III. Phenomenologically, this looks as if that mode would split into two modes, one giving rise to a spatially oscillating contribution to $`C_𝒙(t)`$ and the other one to a spatially decaying term. This splitting occurs along the line $`\lambda =\sqrt{2\tau }`$ and in particular, it follows that the oscillation length always satisfies $`\lambda _{\mathrm{osc}}\sqrt{2\tau }`$.

## 4 Two-time correlations and response functions

Using the expression of the function $`g(t)`$ from eq. (3.6), we can formally compute the two-time observables we are interested in, that is the two-time autocorrelation function and the autoresponse function defined in eqs. (2.17,2.18). In particular, a study of these two functions allows to calculate the fluctuation-dissipation ratio $`X(t,s)`$. A deviation of that ratio from unity should signal a departure from thermodynamic equilibrium. For a sudden quench to a final temperature $`T_1`$ this question has already been studied  and it was shown that indeed $`X(t,s)=1`$ in the long-time limit in the high-temperature phase when $`T_1>T_c`$. Here, with the additional complication of a time-dependent heat bath temperature, we must first define an instantaneous time-dependent temperature of the system in order to make the criterion of the fluctuation-dissipation ratio applicable. We choose the equilibrium part $`\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{eq}}`$ of the single-time correlator as the physical quantity which measures a temperature. Consider for a moment the case of a fixed temperature $`T`$. The equilibrium part behaves for small momenta (or large distances) as

$$\underset{𝒒0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{C}_{\mathrm{eq}}(𝒒)=\underset{𝒒0}{lim}\frac{T}{\omega (𝒒)+\lambda _{\mathrm{eq}}^2}=2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}T$$
(4.1)
and depends on $`T`$ in a known way. Therefore, we use the extension of this relation to define, for a time-dependent bath temperature $`T(t)`$ varying according to eq. (2.5), an effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ of the spin system. Taking the explicit form (3) of the single-time propagator $`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,s)`$ we set

$$\underset{𝒒0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,s)=2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)$$
(4.2)
which is the defining equation for the effective time-dependent temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$. It remains to be seen whether this $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ can play the role of a physical equilibrium temperature.

This can be seen by means of a comparison with the results obtained from an instantaneous quench towards $`T_1`$, hence $`\tau =0`$. For clarity, we shall denote by $`A^{(0)}`$ the result obtained for an observable $`A`$, after a sudden quench with $`\tau =0`$ to the final temperature $`T_1`$. The two-time autocorrelation function $`C^{(0)}(t,s)`$ is explicitly given in eq. (2.58) of . In particular, it is known that  $`lim_{𝒒0}\stackrel{~}{C}^{(0)}(𝒒,s)=2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)T_1`$.

We now consider the two-time autocorrelation function $`C(t,s)`$. From section 2, we have

$`C(t,s)`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}}{\displaystyle d𝒒\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,s)e^{\omega (𝒒)(ts)}}`$ (4.3)
$``$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}}{\displaystyle d𝒒\stackrel{~}{C}(\mathrm{𝟎},s)e^{𝒒^2(ts)}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}}{\displaystyle d𝒒\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)e^{𝒒^2(ts)}}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}}{\displaystyle d𝒒\frac{T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)}{T_1}\stackrel{~}{C}^{(0)}(\mathrm{𝟎},s)e^{𝒒^2(ts)}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)}{T_1}}k^{(0)}(t,s)C^{(0)}(t,s)`$
In the second and the fifth line we used the fact that we are in the regime $`ts1`$, in combination with the fact that in this limit, only the low-$`𝒒`$ behaviour of $`C(t,s)`$ and of $`C^{(0)}(t,s)`$ really contributes. In the fourth line, the definition of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ was used. For brevity, we have set

$$k^{(0)}(t,s)=\sqrt{\frac{g(s)/g^{(0)}(s)}{g(t)/g^{(0)}(t)}}$$
(4.4)
where the Laplace transform of $`g^{(0)}(t)`$ was given in (2.23). The exact autoresponse function is given by

$$R(t,s)=d𝒒\stackrel{~}{R}(𝒒,t,s)=f\left(\frac{ts}{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}=R^{(0)}(t,s)k^{(0)}(t,s)$$
(4.5)
We now ask whether the quasi-equilibrium temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ so defined is really the temperature of a system in equilibrium. A convenient way to test this is through the fluctuation-dissipation ratio

$$X(t,s)=T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)R(t,s)\left(\frac{C(t,s)}{s}\right)^1$$
(4.6)
An equilibrium situation can only be recovered if $`X(t,s)=1`$. We now bring this expression into a simpler form as follows

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X(t,s)}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C(t,s)/s}{T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)R(t,s)}}`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{C(t,s)}{R(t,s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{C(t,s)/s}{C(t,s)}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{(0)}(t,s)T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)T_1^1k^{(0)}(t,s)}{R^{(0)}(t,s)k^{(0)}(t,s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}\mathrm{ln}C(t,s)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{C^{(0)}(t,s)}{R^{(0)}(t,s)}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}\mathrm{ln}C(t,s)`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}\mathrm{ln}C(t,s)\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}\mathrm{ln}C^{(0)}(t,s)\right)^1`$
In performing this calculation, we used in the third line the approximate expressions eq. (4.3,4.5) valid for $`ts\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$ and in the last line, we used the fact the fluctuation-dissipation theorem holds for any instantaneous quench to the final temperature $`T_1>T_c`$ .

After some algebra, we can write this in a compact form, taking also the $`t\mathrm{}`$ limit

$$X(t,s)=\left[1+\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}}{\tau }\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\frac{s}{\tau }\right)\right]^1$$
(4.8)
Remarkably, this scaling form only depends on the single scaling variable $`x=s/\tau >1`$. The associated scaling function reads

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\left(\frac{}{x}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x)+2\frac{}{x}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x)\right)$$
(4.9)
where explicitly

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_1(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{k_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{G_k}{G_0}}e^{kx}`$ (4.10)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_2(x)`$ $`=`$ $`T_1\left[{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}=0}{\overset{k_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}G_{\mathrm{}}e^\mathrm{}x\right]^1`$ (4.11)
$`\times \left[G_0\lambda _{\mathrm{eq}}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{T_0T_1}{T_1}}G_{k_{\mathrm{max}}}\lambda _{k_{\mathrm{max}}+1}^2e^{(k_{\mathrm{max}}+1)x}+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{k_{\mathrm{max}}}{}}}H_k\lambda _k^2e^{kx}\right]`$
A particularly simple form is found for $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$. Physically, this corresponds to the situation when $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$. Then the fluctuation dissipation ratio reads

$$X(t,s)=\left[1+2\frac{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}}{\tau }\left(\frac{\lambda _0^2T_1}{\lambda _1^2(T_0T_1)}\mathrm{exp}(x)1\right)^1\right]^1,x=\frac{s}{\tau }$$
(4.12)
As in the case of an infinitely rapid quench, the fluctuation-dissipation ratio is unity, up to corrections which vanish exponentially fast in the long-time limit. We can conclude that the system evolves towards thermodynamic equilibrium.

## 5 The clamped case and the limit $`\tau /\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)\mathrm{}`$

Studying the kinetics with a time-dependent temperature and in the disordered phase, way may identify the following time regimes:

1. $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$. This case formally corresponds to $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=0`$. Studying the long-time kinetics, we always work in the situation where $`t\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)\tau `$. Up to exponentially small corrections, we recover an equilibrium dynamics as found for an infinitely rapid quench .
2. $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$. In this case, we consider $`t\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$ and also $`t\tau `$. This regime corresponds to a finite non-zero value of $`k_{\mathrm{max}}`$. With respect to the situation of an infinitely rapid quench, there are several new exponentially small contributions which arise, as was shown in section 4. As expected, equilibrium dynamics is recovered.
3. $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)`$. This is called the clamped regime555en français: serré; auf deutsch: eingeklemmt because the microscopic degrees of freedom follow the varying temperature of the external heat bath. Certainly, for times $`t\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$ we shall simply recover equilibrium dynamics, along the lines of section 4. Because we consider only quenches which reduce the temperature $`T_0>T_1>T_c`$ throughout, we always have $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_1)>\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$. On the other hand, new and interesting long-time behaviour occurs in the regime $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)t\tau `$. In this case, the system is in equilibrium as far as the internal degrees of freedom are concerned, since $`t\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$, but has not yet equilibrated with respect to the external time scale of the heat bath, since $`t\tau `$. (a special case of the case under consideration here corresponds to $`k_{\mathrm{max}}=\mathrm{}`$.)

We first have to look closer at the limit $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. As we have seen above, the central part of the calculation is the solution of the Volterra integral equation (2.15) coming from the spherical constraint. However, for $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ and after having performed the Laplace transformation, we may expand in $`1/\tau `$ and then obtain to leading order an ordinary differential equation

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\overline{g}(p)}{\mathrm{d}p}+\tau a(p)\overline{g}(p)=\tau b(p)$$
(5.1)
where

$$a(p)=\frac{2T_0\overline{f}(p)1}{2(T_0T_1)\overline{f}(p)},b(p)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{T_0T_1}$$
(5.2)
Although this equation may be solved straightforwardly through integrations, it is for our purposes more useful to proceed differently. After all, we are merely interested in the large-time (or small-$`p`$) behaviour of the correlators. In addition, because of the $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ limit implicit in eq. (5.1), we must take the limit in such a way that $`\tau a(p)`$ remains finite. Therefore, we merely need $`a(p)`$ in the vicinity of $`p_c`$ defined by $`a(p_c)=0`$.666Physically, one may understand this by noting that in the case of constant temperature $`T_0`$, $`\tau `$ is formally infinite and we should have to leading order $`\overline{g}(T_0,p)=b(p)/a(p)`$. Therefore, the root $`p_c`$ sets the entire physical behaviour, up to normalization factors. The leading long-time behaviour should then be given by an expansion in powers of $`pp_c`$. We write, using (5.2)

$$a(p)\mathrm{\Delta }(pp_c)+\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{2T_0^2}{T_0T_1}\frac{\mathrm{d}\overline{f}(p)}{\mathrm{d}p}|_{p=p_c}<0$$
(5.3)
We look for a solution of (5.1) of the form

$$\overline{g}(p)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau ^n\overline{g}_n(p)$$
(5.4)
and we directly obtain

$$\overline{g}_n(p)=\frac{b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^n\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(n+1/2)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1/2)}(pp_c)^{2n1}$$
(5.5)
In order to perform the inverse Laplace transformation, we write

$$\overline{g}(p)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau ^n_0^{\mathrm{}}dtg_n(t)e^{pt}=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_0^{\mathrm{}}dt\frac{b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\frac{t^2}{2\tau \mathrm{\Delta }}\right)^n\frac{1}{n!}e^{(pp_c)t}$$
(5.6)
At this stage the sum may be performed first and we find

$$g(t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_n(t)e^{p_ct}=\frac{b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{exp}\left(p_ct\frac{t^2}{\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\right)$$
(5.7)
which is valid provided $`t\tau `$. In this expression, $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is the typical time after which the function $`g`$ and then the correlators which are closely related to it differ notably from the expressions they take at formally infinite external relaxation time $`\tau `$. We find

$$\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{2\tau \mathrm{\Delta }}=\sqrt{2\tau \frac{2T_0^2}{T_0T_1}\left|\frac{\mathrm{d}\overline{f}(p)}{\mathrm{d}p}\right|_{p=p_c}}$$
(5.8)
Remarkably enough, $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ differs from the external time $`\tau _{\mathrm{ext}}=\tau `$. Rather, it is the geometric mean between the externally imposed relaxation time scale as measured by $`\tau `$ and an internal time scale, measured by $`\tau _{\mathrm{dep}}=2\mathrm{\Delta }(T_0,T_1)`$. In the physical observables, $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ appears as a natural time scale informing on the departure from an effectively constant temperature $`T=T_0`$. We point out that this new time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{dep}}`$ is distinct from the equilibration time at temperature $`T_0`$, namely $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)=1/p_c`$.

For example, the two-time response function becomes

$$R(t,s)=R^{(0)}(t,s)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(ts)(t+s)}{4\tau |\mathrm{\Delta }|}\right)$$
(5.9)
which illustrates again the role of $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the description of the deviation with respect to $`R^{(0)}(t,s)`$.

We now comment on how these results depend on spatial dimensionality $`d`$. From eq. (5.8), we directly see that $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ diverges when $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$ get closer to each other. Far from the critical region, we have $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}(T_0T_1)^{1/2}`$, independently of $`d`$. On the other hand, when the system enters the critical region, results depend on whether fluctuations are strong as is the case for $`2<d<4`$ or whether one has mean-field criticality when $`d>4`$. In the fluctuation-dominated regime, that is $`2<d<4`$, the first derivative of $`\overline{f}(p)`$ diverges as $`p`$ goes to zero. Using the known small-$`p`$ expansion of $`\overline{f}`$ , we find

$$\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}\left[\frac{T_1T_c}{T_c}\right]^{\frac{4d}{2(d2)}}(T_0T_1)^{1/2}$$
(5.10)
On the other hand, in the mean-field regime $`d>4`$, the first derivative of $`\overline{f}(p)`$ remains bounded even in the neighbourhood of the critical point. Then we simply retain $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}(T_0T_1)^{1/2}`$.

For $`2<d<4`$, we have thus found a rather counterintuitive effect. Namely, the time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ up to which the system evolves as if the temperature were fixed at $`T_0`$, increases when the final temperature $`T_1`$ approaches the critical temperature $`T_c`$. This enhancement of $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is absent for $`d>4`$ and must therefore be related to the presence of strong fluctuation effects close to $`T_c`$ and below the upper critical dimension.

Finally, we consider the two-time observables and the fluctuation-dissipation ratio. We have just seen that for $`\tau `$ large, the kinetics of the system occurs at an infinitesimally slow rate for a long time. In contrast to the treatment of section 4, it is therefore useful to compare the time-evolving quantities with the ones when formally $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ or, in physical terms, when the temperature remains fixed at $`T_0`$. Formally, the calculations can be done by analogy with section 4. First, we use the single-time correlator to define an effective time-evolving temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ from the relationship

$$\underset{𝒒0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,s)=2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)$$
(5.11)
We shall denote by $`A^{(\mathrm{})}`$ the result obtained for an observable $`A`$ with a time evolution governed by an infinitely long external time $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$. In particular, we have $`lim_{𝒒0}\stackrel{~}{C}^{(\mathrm{})}(𝒒,s)=2T_0\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$. As in section 4, it is easy to see that

$$C(t,s)=\frac{T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)}{T_0}k^{(\mathrm{})}(t,s)C^{(\mathrm{})}(t,s),k^{(\mathrm{})}(t,s)=\sqrt{\frac{g(s)/g^{(\mathrm{})}(s)}{g(t)/g^{(\mathrm{})}(t)}}$$
(5.12)
where $`g^{(\mathrm{})}(t)`$ is again the solution of the spherical constraint (2.15) but now for $`\tau =\mathrm{}`$ and therefore $`T_1`$ is replaced by $`T_0`$.

We now want to find $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ explicitly. Using the general expressions for the single-time correlator $`\stackrel{~}{C}(𝒒,t)`$ from section 2, the explicit form of $`g(t)`$ found above and taking the limit $`𝒒0`$, we obtain

$$T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{exp}(p_cs+s^2/\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}^2)}{2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)b}\left[1+\frac{2b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_0^sdt_1\mathrm{exp}\left(p_ct_1\frac{t_1^2}{\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}^2}\right)\left(T_1+(T_0T_1)e^{t_1/\tau }\right)\right]$$
(5.13)
Now, we consider times $`s`$ which satisfy

$$\frac{s}{|\mathrm{\Delta }|}\frac{\tau }{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)}$$
(5.14)
From the explicit form of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, it is clear that this condition is the easier to satisfy the closer $`T_0`$ to $`T_1`$, even if both are far from the critical point $`T_c`$. We then obtain

$`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }e^{p_cs}}{2b\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}T_1p_c^1e^{p_cs}+{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}(T_0T_1){\displaystyle \frac{e^{(p_c1/\tau )s}}{p_c1/\tau }}+O\left(e^{p_cs}\right)\right]`$ (5.15)
$`=`$ $`T(s)`$
where in the last step we used that $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$ or equivalently that $`p_c1/\tau `$, and we recall the definition $`\overline{f}(p_c)=1/T_0`$. Therefore, we see that under the stated conditions, the effective temperature is equal to the temperature of the external heat bath. This nicely confirms that our definition of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ is a natural one.

Physically, this result illustrates the (expected) applicability of the adiabatic approximation to equal-time two-point correlators. Namely, we have seen that in the limit $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$, the effective temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(s)`$ equals the bath temperature $`T(s)`$ and the equal-time two-point correlators are those of a quasi-equilibrium system.

Lastly, we examine to what extent this heuristic expectation concerning equal-time correlators carries over to two-time quantities. First, in an analogous manner to section 4, the two-time response function reads

$$R(t,s)=f\left(\frac{ts}{2}\right)\sqrt{\frac{g(s)}{g(t)}}=R^{(\mathrm{})}(t,s)k^{(\mathrm{})}(t,s)$$
(5.16)
Then, we can easily compute the fluctuation-dissipation ratio $`X(t,s)`$. Formally, it is again defined by (4.6) and we find as before

$$\frac{1}{X(t,s)}=\left(\frac{}{s}\mathrm{ln}C(t,s)\right)\left(\frac{}{s}\mathrm{ln}C^{(\mathrm{})}(t,s)\right)^1$$
(5.17)
and this holds provided $`ts\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$. In the just-studied adiabatic regime, we have

$$C(t,s)=\frac{T(s)}{T_0}e^{(s^2t^2)/\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}^2}C^{(\mathrm{})}(t,s)$$
(5.18)
and the fluctuation-dissipation ratio becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{X(t,s)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{s}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{T(s)}{T_0}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2s}{\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)}}\right)2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$ (5.19)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{2s}{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)}{\tau }}2{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{(T_0T_1)e^{s/\tau }}{T_1+(T_0T_1)e^{s/\tau }}}`$
$``$ $`12{\displaystyle \frac{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)}{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{T_0T_1}{T_0}}`$
where the last relation is valid provided $`s\tau `$ and where the condition eq. (5.14) was used.

For an equilibrium system, it is well-known that $`X(t,s)=1`$ for all times $`s<t`$ from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. Here, we find an intermediate regime $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)s\tau `$ such that $`X(t,s)`$ reaches a plateau value which is different from unity. Still, the adiabatic approximation remains valid, up to small corrections in $`s/\tau `$. However, the fact that for $`s\tau `$ the difference $`X(t,s)1`$ is finite (albeit it may numerically be small) shows that the validity of the fluctuation-dissipation relation is independent of, and more restrictive than, the adiabatic approximation.

Of course, for $`s\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$ the fluctuation-dissipation theorem will be recovered. In other words, eq. (5.19) shows that the equilibration $`s\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)`$ with respect to the internal degrees of freedom is already enough to reproduce the flucutation-dissipation theorem to a good approximation while it becomes exact when equilibration with respect to the bath, $`s\tau `$ is also achieved.

## 6 Conclusions

We have studied how the non-equilibrium kinetics of a simple ferromagnet is modified when the system is not instantaneously quenched to a final temperature $`T_1`$ but brought into contact with a heat bath starting at an initial temperature $`T_0`$ such that the approach towards $`T_1`$ is described by a finite external relaxation time $`\tau `$, according to (1.1). More general temperature histories $`T(t)`$ of the heat bath can be decomposed into sums of exponentials via Laplace transformations. Then the physically interesting long-time behaviour will be governed by the largest relaxation time arising in the Laplace spectrum. We have studied as an example the exactly solvable spherical model in order to get physical insight into the role of a finite value of $`\tau `$. We have concentrated on the high-temperature phase such that $`T_0>T_1>T_c`$, generalizing previous studies  with $`\tau =0`$.

Our results can be summarized as follows:

1. If $`\tau `$ is smaller than or at most of the same order of magnitude as the internal relaxation or equilibration time $`\tau _{\mathrm{int}}=\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$, then for times large compared to $`\tau ,\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ the system approaches exponentially fast the known stationary state, in agreement with what was found previously for $`\tau =0`$ .

In addition, there are transient contributions to the spin-spin correlation function with spatial oscillations on finite length scales $`\lambda `$. In particular, if $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$, we find

$$\lambda ^1\sqrt{\frac{1}{\tau }\frac{1}{\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}}}$$
(6.1)
2. In this case, the stationary state is indeed in thermodynamic equilibrium and is reached exponentially fast for times larger than $`\tau `$. We have checked this through explicit calculation of the fluctuation-dissipation ratio $`X(t,s)1`$ for late times.
3. A qualitatively different behaviour may be observed in the clamped case, where $`\tau \tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$.

A common physical example with clamped degrees of freedom is a glass. A system in a glass state remains out of equilibrium as attested by the fact that the fluctuation-dissipation limit $`X_{\mathrm{}}=lim_s\mathrm{}lim_t\mathrm{}X(t,s)1`$ (experimentally, this has been studied recently for the spin glass CdCr1.7In0.3S4  and a colloidal glas ). This means that in a glass different temperatures can be defined, depending on the way temperature is measured. These phenomenological properties characteristic of a glass can be partially reproduced in our simple model, even though we did not introduce disorder into the Hamiltonian.

Specifically, we have shown, in the setting of the kinetic spherical model, that in the clamped case

1. the effective time-dependent temperature $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}(t)`$ as defined in eq. (5.11) from the equal-time spin-spin correlator agrees with the external bath temperature $`T(t)`$ for times larger than $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$.
    2. the time-evolution of two-time observables is governed by the initial temperature $`T_0`$ for times up to the new time scale (if $`2<d<4`$)

    $$\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}\left(\frac{T_1T_c}{T_c}\right)^{(4d)/(2(d2))}\left(T_0T_1\right)^{1/2}$$
    (6.2)
    distinct from both $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}`$ and $`\tau `$ and much larger than $`\tau `$ if $`T_1`$ is close to criticality. Remarkably, $`\tau _{\mathrm{eff}}=\sqrt{\tau \tau _{\mathrm{dep}}}`$ is the geometric mean of $`\tau `$ and the purely internal time scale $`\tau _{\mathrm{dep}}\tau `$, see (5.8). Here the temporal evolution of the two-time observables is delayed with respect to the evolution of the bath temperature $`T(t)`$.
    3. there is an intermediate regime $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)s\tau `$ such that the system’s internal degrees of freedom are in quasi-equilibrium while equilibrium is not yet achieved with respect to the temporal evolution of the bath. Then we find that the model reaches a quasi-stationary state, which however cannot be a quasi-equilibrium state, since the fluctuation-dissipation ratio

    $$X(t,s)=\left(1\frac{2\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)}{\tau }\frac{T_0T_1}{T_0}\right)^1$$
    (6.3)
    takes on a value different from (albeit close to) unity in the regime $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)s\tau `$.

In distinction to glasses, the plateau value (6.3) is only reached in the intermediate regime $`\tau _{\mathrm{eq}}(T_0)s\tau `$, before the system relaxes to equilibrium for very large waiting times $`s\tau `$.

We stress that the clamped case arises for $`\tau `$ large. At first sight, one might have naively expected that if the bath temperature $`T(t)`$ is slowly changed, the system might be able to follow the evolution of the bath through a sequence of equilibrium states. Although our explicit results are in agreement with the adiabatic approximations they also show that the validity of the fluctuation-dissipation theorem depends on more than the validity of the adiabatic picture. This observation might be of particular significance for the interpretation of experimental studies on the time-evolution of cooling systems (our results only hold if both the initial and final temperatures are in the disordered phase). Finally, it remains an open question what happens when the ordered phase is entered. We hope to come back to this problem in the future.

While our results were obtained in the framework of the spherical model, we expect that the qualitative results, in particular on when an equilibrium state can be reached, should be of broader validity. Tests of this expectation in other systems would be of interest.

Acknowledgements

We thank J-M Luck for a useful discussion. MH thanks the Centro de Física da Matéria Condensada (CFMC) of the Universidade de Lisboa for warm hospitality.