text:
# Critical properties of the three- and four-dimensional gauge glass

## I Introduction

Spin glasses have long been recognized to be the canonical examples of complex systems and so are of fundamental interest for statistical physics and in particular the statistical physics of phase transitions. The critical behavior at standard continuous transitions in systems without disorder is now understood very precisely and in impressive detail thanks to the renormalization group (RG) approach. An important step forward towards the comprehension of the vast family of glassy transitions would be to arrive at a similar degree of understanding concerning the critical behavior at the spin-glass transition. Unfortunately this task has proven to be extremely difficult. First of all, below the upper critical dimension $`(d=6)`$, the renormalization group theory that works so well for standard transitions has been found to present formidable technical difficultiesde Dominicis et al. (1998) and is of little guidance in lower dimensions. Second, on the purely practical side, numerical work is laborious and has tended to lead to imprecise values of ordering temperatures and critical exponents. Randomly disordered samples are microscopically inequivalent to each other and to obtain data that are truly representative of the global average, measurements must be made over large numbers of disorder realizations. Time scales are long and obtaining thermal equilibrium in large system sizes is hard. Finite-size scaling methods are invariably used to estimate exponents but are carried out on a restricted range of sizes as the need for extensive computer time escalates when the system sizes increase. Because measurements are thus intrinsically restricted to small or moderate system sizes, it is essential to take into account possible artifacts due to corrections to finite-size scaling. Little is known about the magnitude of these corrections a priori and nevertheless the data must be analyzed in such a way that existing corrections are identified and allowed for.

Among spin glasses the Ising (ISG) systems have been by far the most studied numerically for obvious practical reasons. Here we report results using a variety of numerical techniques on the gauge glass (GG) in space dimensions $`d=3`$ and $`4`$. This system is of interest in its own right because vector spin systems are generally much closer to experimental realizations of spin-glass ordering than are ISGs. Most laboratory spin glasses are made up of Heisenberg spins with $`O(3)`$-symmetry and it has been suggested that chiral ordering plays an important role in spin freezing.Kawamura (1992, 1998) Vortex glasses in type II superconductors can be modeled by $`XY`$ vector spins \[$`O(2)`$ symmetry\], and GGs have already been studied extensively in this context.Reger et al. (1991); Reger and Young (1993); Olson and Young (2000); Katzgraber and Young (2002) GGs are vector spin glasses which, due to symmetry arguments, do not show chiral ordering.Olson and Young (2000)

This work has two main aims. The first is to take this particular family of spin glasses as a case study in order to demonstrate that there exists a whole toolbox of numerical techniques available to identify spin-glass ordering transitions and to attempt to estimate as reliably and precisely as possible the related critical exponents and the associated corrections to scaling. Each of these techniques can have its advantages and disadvantages, and we evaluate the reliability of the different methods. Second, having values for the GG exponents in hand which are as precise as possible, it is of interest to follow the evolution of their values as a function of space dimension in this particular family and to compare with values obtained in other families of spin glasses.

We have checked for and analyzed corrections to finite-size scaling in the observables measured; the relative influence of these corrections varies considerably from one observable to another. This can explain inconsistencies between the estimates of critical temperatures and critical exponents in various spin glasses which have been reported. We conclude that the “current” defined later (related to the domain-wall stiffness at low temperatures) is little affected by corrections to finite-size scaling and thus provides reliable estimates of the ordering temperature $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Measurements using the spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi (L,T)`$, alone or together with nonequilibrium measurements, are also accurate and reliable. On the other hand in the systems with finite-temperature transitions we have studied the intersection of the correlation length divided by system size, $`\xi _L(T)/L`$, and find that the method is very sensitive to corrections to finite-size scaling even for sizes where these corrections have become negligible for other observables. This method on its own would give imprecise or misleading estimates for the ordering temperature of the GG. Nevertheless it can relatively well pinpoint if $`T_\mathrm{c}>0`$, or not, in general.

In Sec. II we introduce the model studied. In Sec. III we discuss the equilibration test used in the (parallel tempering) Monte Carlo method and describe the equilibrium observables measured. Off-equilibrium Monte Carlo methods and observables are discussed in Sec. IV, followed by results in $`d=4`$ in Sec. V and $`d=3`$ in Sec. VI. Some results for $`d=2`$ are presented in Sec. VII. We conclude with a summary and a comparison of the techniques used to determine the critical parameters in Sec. VIII and with a discussion about the dimensional dependence of the critical exponents in Sec. IX. Concluding remarks are presented in Sec. X.

## II Model

The gauge glass is a canonical vector spin glass (see, for instance, Ref. Olson and Young, 2000) where $`XY`$ spins on a \[hyper\]cubic lattice of size $`L`$ interact through the Hamiltonian

$$=J\underset{i,j}{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _jA_{ij}),$$
(1)
the sum ranging over nearest neighbors. The angles $`\varphi _i`$ represent the orientations of the $`XY`$ spins and the $`A_{ij}`$ are quenched random variables uniformly distributed between $`[0,2\pi ]`$ with the constraint that $`A_{ij}=A_{ji}`$. $`J`$ is conventionally set equal to $`1`$. Periodic boundary conditions are applied.

## III Equilibrium Observables

Equilibrium measurements are carried out with samples fully thermalized using the exchange Monte Carlo (parallel tempering) technique.Hukushima and Nemoto (1996); Marinari (1998) We ensure equilibration by checking that different observables do not change with the amount of Monte Carlo steps and measure by doubling the number of Monte Carlo steps. Once the last three measurements agree within error bars we are satisfied with the equilibration.

For $`XY`$ spin systems there is a choice to be made in the allowed single-spin acceptance angle for individual updating steps. To optimize the updating procedure, the limiting angle is often chosen to be less than $`2\pi `$ for an $`XY`$ spinKatzgraber and Young (2001) and linearly dependent on temperature. The numerical prefactor for the temperature-dependent window is chosen so that the acceptance ratios for the local Monte Carlo updates is $`0.4`$. As far as the final equilibrium parameters are concerned, this choice plays no role. However, for the nonequilibrium simulations to be introduced later on it is important to use the full $`2\pi `$ acceptance angle.

In Table 1, we show $`N_{\mathrm{samp}}`$ (number of samples), $`N_{\mathrm{sweep}}`$ (total number of sweeps performed by each set of spins), and $`N_T`$ (number of temperature values), used in the simulations in four dimensions. Table 2 has the corresponding values for the simulations in three dimensions. The parameters for the simulations in two dimensions are presented in Table 3 (see also Ref. Katzgraber, 2003).

A primary observable for a spin glass is the equilibrium spin-glass susceptibility at finite system size $`L`$, $`\chi (L,T)`$. The susceptibility is defined asKatzgraber and Young (2002)

$$\chi =N[q^2]_{\mathrm{av}},$$
(2)
where $`q`$ is the spin-glass order parameter:

$$q=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\varphi _i^\alpha \varphi _i^\beta )].$$
(3)
Here, $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are two replicas of the system with the same disorder and $`[\mathrm{}]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ represents a disorder average, whereas $`\mathrm{}`$ represents a thermal average; $`N`$ is the number of spins in the system. The standard finite-size scaling form for the equilibrium spin-glass susceptibility is

$$\chi (L)=L^{2\eta }\stackrel{~}{C}[L^{1/\nu }(TT_\mathrm{c})].$$
(4)
The function $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ tends to a constant at the critical temperature so that at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$

$$\chi (L)L^{2\eta },$$
(5)
where $`\eta `$ and $`\nu `$ are the usual critical exponents. Following the RG approach, the spin-glass susceptibility, like the other observables, will be modified at small $`L`$ by a correction to scaling factor $`[1+AL^\omega +\mathrm{}]`$, where $`\omega `$ is the correction exponent arising from the leading irrelevant operator in the RG and $`A`$ is a constant. However, in general there are also “lattice artifact” correction termsSalas and Sokal (2000) giving at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$

$$\chi (L)L^{2\eta }+B+\mathrm{},$$
(6)
where $`B`$ has no relation to the RG correction. This leads to an effective leading correction factor $`[1+B^{}L^{(2\eta )}]`$. If $`\omega >(2\eta )`$ corrections will be dominated by the leading “analytic” term with an effective correction exponent $`(2\eta )`$.Salas and Sokal (1998, 2000); Ballesteros et al. (1999)

Spin-glass susceptibility measurements can be used directly to estimate $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. As $`\chi (L)`$ in absence of corrections to scaling increases as $`L^{2\eta }`$ at the ordering temperature, a log-log plotlog  of $`\chi (L)`$ against $`L`$ is linear at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. At higher temperatures the plot will curve downward and at lower temperatures it will curve upward. The crossover from negative to positive curvature at large $`L`$ should give a precise measure of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Alternatively one can plot $`\mathrm{ln}[\chi (nL)/\chi (L)]`$ as functions of $`T`$ for different $`L`$, and, for instance, $`n=2`$. The curves will intersect at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Direct scaling of $`\chi (L,T)`$ according to Eq. (4) on the contrary provides a very poor indication for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$.Katzgraber and Young (2002) In the presence of corrections there will be an additional curvature at small $`L`$ which should be essentially temperature independent near $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. If data on a reasonably wide range of $`L`$ are available it is possible to identify the leading correction term and to estimate $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ using data at $`L`$ values large enough for the correction term to be negligible.

The Binder ratioBinder (1981) for the GG is defined byKawamura (2000)

$$g(T)=2\frac{[q^4]_{\mathrm{av}}}{[q^2]_{\mathrm{av}}^2}.$$
(7)
Finite-size scaling predicts

$$g(T,L)=\stackrel{~}{G}[L^{1/\nu }(TT_\mathrm{c})].$$
(8)
This dimensionless observable should be independent of $`L`$ at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, except for corrections to scaling. The Binder ratio is a bona fide “work horse” widely used to obtain an estimate of the critical temperature of statistical systems. It has frequently been used in ISG studies to estimate ordering temperatures. However, even in ISGs the Binder crossing point method is not efficient for determining $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ precisely, at least in dimension three, because the $`g(T,L)`$ curves tend to lie very close to each other so the estimate of the crossing point is very sensitive to corrections to scaling.Mari and Campbell (2002) In the particular case of the GG, the method is inoperable because the Binder curves do not intersect, at least for the range of sizes that have been studied here.

For vector systems it is possible to measure a domain-wall-stiffness-like parameter, the “current”,Reger et al. (1991); Reger and Young (1993); Olson and Young (2000); Katzgraber and Young (2002) which is the rate of change of the free energy with respect to a twist angle at the boundaries. For the gauge glass:

$$I(L)=\frac{1}{L}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _i\varphi _{i+\widehat{x}}A_{ii+\widehat{x}}).$$
(9)
In this case, the twist is applied along the $`\widehat{x}`$ direction. As $`[I(L)]_{\mathrm{av}}=0`$, we actually calculate the root-mean-square current $`I_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ between two replicas:

$$I_{\mathrm{rms}}=\sqrt{[I(L)_\alpha I(L)_\beta ]_{\mathrm{av}}}.$$
(10)
The root-mean-square currents for different $`L`$ cross at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and splay out at lower temperatures. They have a finite-size scaling form for a finite-temperature transitionKatzgraber and Young (2002)

$$I=\stackrel{~}{I}[L^{1/\nu }(TT_\mathrm{c})].$$
(11)
The intersection of the $`I_{\mathrm{rms}}(L)`$ curves gives a clear indication of the value of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Corrections to finite-size scaling must be allowed for, but in practice these are weak. The main drawback of this method is the fact that in current measurements intrinsic sample-to-sample fluctuations are very strong so that data must be taken on a large number of independent disorder realizations in thermal equilibrium.

A further important observable is the two-point correlation length. In an infinite sample the correlation function

$$G(r_{ij})=[𝐒_i𝐒_j^2]_{\mathrm{av}}$$
(12)
is of the form

$$G(r_{ij})r_{ij}^{(d2+\eta )}e^{r_{ij}/\xi (T)},$$
(13)
where $`i`$ and $`j`$ represent the position of the magnetic moments. $`\xi (T)`$ is the correlation length, which diverges as $`(TT_\mathrm{c})^\nu `$. In some systems $`G(r)`$ has been directly recorded; when $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is known, the measurement of $`G(r)`$ at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ on reasonably large samples provides a very direct measurement of $`\eta `$. (Measurements have also been made as a function of anneal time for temperatures lower than $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ in the Edwards Anderson ISG.Berthier and Bouchaud (2002)) Under periodic boundary conditions there must clearly be a cutoff for $`G(r)`$ at $`r_{ij}=L/2`$, and even before this cutoff the behavior is modified as $`G(r_{ij})`$ must become $`r`$-independent at the cell boundary so as to be compatible with the periodic boundary conditions. A size-dependent correlation length $`\xi _L`$ can be defined throughBallesteros et al. (2000); Lee and Young (2003); Cooper et al. (1982); Martín-Mayor et al. (2002)

$$\xi _L=\frac{1}{2\mathrm{sin}(|𝐤_{\mathrm{min}}|/2)}\left[\frac{\widehat{G}(\mathrm{𝟎})}{\widehat{G}(𝐤_{\mathrm{min}})}1\right]^{1/2},$$
(14)
where $`\widehat{G}(\mathrm{𝟎})`$ and $`\widehat{G}(𝐤_{\mathrm{min}})`$ are Fourier transforms of the spatial correlation function $`G(r)`$Kim et al. (1996), and $`𝐤_{\mathrm{min}}=(2\pi /L,0,0)`$ is the smallest nonzero wave vector. This second-moment correlation length is in fact an observable having the dimension of length, which becomes equal to the correlation length in the limit $`L\xi `$. It is referred to as the “size-dependent correlation length” even in the limit of $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$ and below, where the infinite-size correlation length $`\xi `$ has diverged. The ratio $`\xi _L/L`$ at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ should be $`L`$-independentKatzgraber (2003) as the form of the whole function $`G(r)`$ scales appropriately with $`L`$. Curves for the ratio of the finite-size correlation length to sample length $`\xi _L(T)/L`$ for different $`L`$ cross at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and then splay out at lower $`T`$,Palassini and Caracciolo (1999); Ballesteros et al. (2000); Lee and Young (2003); Katzgraber (2003) i.e.,

$$\xi _L/L=\stackrel{~}{X}[L^{1/\nu }(TT_\mathrm{c})].$$
(15)
This makes this observable very attractive for estimating $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. Unfortunately at small and moderate $`L`$, the ratio $`\xi _L/L`$ can be very susceptible to corrections to scaling. In addition, the definition of $`\xi _L`$ through Eq. (14) is a convention and other definitions having the same limiting form at infinite $`L`$ are equally plausible.Salas and Sokal (2000) At small and moderate $`L`$ there are correction terms $`L^2`$ from the subleading term in the sine factor in the conventional definition. There may be a “lattice artifact” correction termSalas and Sokal (2000) of order $`1/L`$, in addition to the “true” correction term in $`L^\omega `$ arising from the leading irrelevant operator. Physically, $`\widehat{G}(0)`$ is the sum over the spins within a box $`L^d`$ correlated to a central spin and so is equal to the equilibrium $`\chi (L)`$. $`\widehat{G}(2\pi /L)`$ contains a positive term from spins close to the central spin together with a term from some of the spins further from the central spin which is negative because of the cosine factor. A slight change in the form of the function $`G(r)`$ with $`L`$ will have little effect on the $`L`$-dependence of $`\widehat{G}(0)`$ while it can modify the Fourier transform $`\widehat{G}(2\pi /L)`$ much more drastically. Hence one can expect that at low and moderate $`L`$, $`\xi _L/L`$ will be much more sensitive to corrections to finite-size scaling than $`\chi (L)`$ will. Even for the canonical ferromagnetic Ising model in two dimensions, the corrections in $`\xi _L/L`$ (or to the variant second moment correlation length $`\xi _L^{}/L`$ with a slightly different definition Salas and Sokal (2000)) at criticality are strong for $`L20`$, with different correction terms contributing.Salas and Sokal (2000) As a consequence, correlation-length data should as a general rule be treated with caution unless detailed results exist over a wide range of $`L`$ from which the various correction contributions can be evaluated.

Taken over the entire temperature range, ratios such as $`\xi _{2L}(T)/\xi _L(T)`$ or $`\chi (2L,T)/\chi (L,T)`$ should be universal scaling functions of $`\xi _L(T)/L`$.Palassini and Caracciolo (1999) If there are corrections to scaling, scaling curves for different $`L`$ will not be identical; this provides an operational method for checking for corrections to scaling in $`\xi _L/L`$ not only at or near $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, but over the whole range of temperatures.

Finally, we also record the equilibrium energy per spin. As is well known, the energy of glassy systems varies smoothly through the ordering temperature, but the size dependence of the energy has a behavior linked to the ordering temperature. This is discussed elsewhere.Katzgraber and Campbell (2003)

## IV Out of equilibrium methods

Complementary out-of-equilibrium measurements are also carried out. Large samples of size $`L`$ are initialized in a disordered (infinite temperature) state; they are then held at a bath temperature $`T`$ for an anneal time $`t_\mathrm{w}`$. The spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi (t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ is monitored as a function of $`t`$. At $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ dynamic scaling rules hold; the spin-glass susceptibility increases proportional to $`t^{(2\eta /z)}`$, as clusters of correlated spins build up over time.Huse (1989) This equation is not valid at very short time scales as $`\chi `$ is identically equal to $`1`$ for a sample of any size and dimension in the totally disordered state, so the scaling equation will only set in after a crossover from this initial zero-time value. Even after this crossover, there can be corrections to scaling in the nonequilibrium susceptibility data, when only small clusters have been built up. Here the corrections appear as corrections to finite-time scaling but are physically equivalent to corrections to finite-size scaling. Including the correction term,

$$\chi (t)=At^{(2\eta /z)}(1+Bt^{w/z}+\mathrm{}),$$
(16)
where $`w`$ is a dynamic correction to scaling exponent analogous to $`\omega `$.Parisi et al. (1999) In principle $`w`$ and $`\omega `$ have no fundamental reason to be exactly equal but can be expected to be similar. Finally, if the measurement is continued long enough, the long-time susceptibility will cross over to a saturation value which is just the equilibrium susceptibility $`\chi (L,T)`$ for the measurement temperature $`T`$ and the sample size $`L`$ used.

It is clear from a comparison of the equations for the equilibrium susceptibility and the dynamic susceptibility at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ that for all intermediate times between the very short time limit and the $`L`$-dependent long-time limit, the measurement after a time $`t_\mathrm{w}`$ on a large sample should be equivalent to the measurement at equilibrium on a sample of size

$$L^{}=At^{1/z},$$
(17)
with $`A`$ a constant and $`z`$ the dynamic scaling exponent. $`\chi (L)`$ and $`\chi (L^{})`$ can be displayed on the same graph; with a judicious choice of parameters $`A(T)`$ and $`z(T)`$ the set of $`\chi (L^{})`$ scale onto the set of equilibrium data $`\chi (L)`$. This provides us with a direct method for estimating $`z(T)`$. Alternative techniques which have been used for estimating the value of $`z(T)`$ independently of the other exponents are the monitoring of the time variation of the Binder parameter for different sample sizesBlundell et al. (1992) or the scaling of the time-dependent spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi (L,t)`$ for different sizes $`L`$Olson and Young (2000). The present method is more convenient than the Binder parameter measurements as the latter are intrinsically noisy.

We have carried out dynamical measurements over a range of temperatures and not just at the putative ordering temperature. If we assume that there is an effective dynamic scaling exponent $`z(T)`$ at each temperature $`T`$ and not only at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, then at each $`T`$ we should be able to translate $`\chi (t)`$ data into $`\chi (L^{})`$ data by a suitable choice of $`A(T)`$ and $`z(T)`$. If dynamic scaling continues to hold at other $`T`$, then once again it should be possible to make the $`\chi (L^{})`$ data scale onto the $`\chi (L)`$ data. The assumption of an effective $`z(T)`$ has been made before in a different context, but applied only at temperatures below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ (see, for instance. Refs. Berthier and Bouchaud, 2002 and Marinari and Parisi, 2000).

Finally, after a long anneal time $`t_\mathrm{w}`$ the ultimate configuration $`\{𝐒_i(t_\mathrm{w})\}`$ is registered. The updating procedure is then pursued for a further time $`t`$ considerably less than $`t_\mathrm{w}`$ and the autocorrelation function decay

$$q(t,t_\mathrm{w})=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}𝐒_i(t_\mathrm{w}+t)𝐒_i(t_\mathrm{w})$$
(18)
is monitored starting from what can now be considered a quasi-equilibrium configuration. In Eq. (18) $`𝐒_i`$ represents the vector spins in the plane. In the context of Ising spin glasses it has been shownRieger (1993); Berthier and Bouchaud (2002); Ozeki and Ito (2001) that the initial decay behavior of $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ is not dependent on the sample having achieved perfect thermal equilibrium; as long as the time scale over which $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ is monitored is much shorter than the annealing time $`t_\mathrm{w}`$, then the form of $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ is characteristic of the infinite-size limit initial relaxation in equilibrium. Again at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, for a large sample in equilibrium, the autocorrelation function $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ decays algebraically as $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})t^x`$ withOgielski (1985)

$$x=(d2+\eta )/2z(T=T_\mathrm{c}).$$
(19)
Measurements in Ising spin glassesRieger (1993); Kisker et al. (1996); Ozeki and Ito (2001); Berthier and Bouchaud (2002) have shown that at all temperatures below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ the $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ data can be accurately fitted by this power-law form of decay with a temperature-dependent effective exponent $`x(T)`$. For temperatures higher than $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, the decay of $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ has the same initial power-law form which is now multiplied by a further factor $`\stackrel{~}{Q}[t/\tau (T)]`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{Q}`$ is a scaling function and $`\tau (T)`$ is a relaxation time diverging as $`(TT_\mathrm{c})^{z\nu }`$ when $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is approached from above.Ogielski (1985) In ISG measurements $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ shows very little short-time corrections to scaling; at $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$ and below, $`q(t,t_\mathrm{w})`$ for large well-annealed samples follows a strict power-law decay beyond very few Monte Carlo steps after “zero” time.

Nonequilibrium measurements can be used in combination with the equilibrium susceptibility measurements to obtain an estimate of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ from consistency arguments.Bernardi et al. (1996) The effective dynamical exponent $`z(T)`$ is measured from the comparison of equilibrium and nonequilibrium susceptibility measurements. The effective exponent $`\eta (T)`$ is measured from the size-dependent equilibrium susceptibility measurements through $`\chi (L,T)/L^2=L^{\eta (T)}`$. Then, at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, the relaxation decay exponent $`x`$ must be equal to $`(d2+\eta )/2z`$. The consistency between the directly measured $`x(T)`$ and the other exponents gives an efficient criterion for determining $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. This technique has a number of advantages. $`x(T)`$ and $`z(T)`$ can be measured on almost arbitrarily large samples and so can be rendered free of corrections to scaling. In addition, they can be measured without the need to achieve complete thermal equilibrium. The most laborious measurement is the size-dependence of $`\chi (T)`$ in equilibrium; however, $`\chi (L,T)`$ measurements are generally only subject to weak corrections to finite-size scaling so a limited range of $`L`$ can be adequate.

The parameters of the off-equilibrium simulations using simple Monte Carlo updates are listed in Table 4.

## V Four Dimensions

In this section we compare different observables as well as critical exponents and transition temperatures derived from finite-size scaling arguments for the four-dimensional gauge glass.

### V.1 Root-mean-square current

Current measurements are made for sizes $`L=3`$$`5`$. The details of the simulation are shown in Table 1. The intersection of the $`I_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ curves shown in Fig. 1 gives an estimate $`T_\mathrm{c}=0.890\pm 0.015`$. This is significantly lower than the value of $`0.96\pm 0.01`$ reported by Reger and Young,Reger and Young (1993) although their data are almost compatible with the present intersection point within the statistical error bars. Corrections to finite-size scaling appear to be minimal for these measurements. However, current measurements are intrinsically noisy with strong sample-to-sample variations at equilibrium, so it is imperative to average over large numbers of samples. In Fig. 2 we show a scaling plot of the data in Fig. 1 according to Eq. (11). The data scale well for the (modest) range of sizes and we estimate $`1/\nu =1.42\pm 0.03`$ together with the above-mentioned estimate of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The previously quoted error is estimated by varying the scaling parameters until the data do not collapse well. This method is also used in all subsequent estimates of error bars of scaling exponents and critical temperatures derived from scaling plots.

### V.2 Equilibrium susceptibility

The susceptibility data at equilibrium are obtained from the same data set in Sec. V.1 and shown in Fig. 3. The data are plotted in the form of curves for $`\mathrm{ln}[\chi (L)/L^2]`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ at different temperatures. As discussed above, if corrections to scaling are negligible, this form of plot gives a straight line of slope $`\eta `$ at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, together with curves which bend downward for $`T>T_\mathrm{c}`$ and upward for $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$. For the four-dimensional GG, corrections are very weak because even including values for $`L=2`$ the log-log plot of the data at the temperature closest to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ as estimated above follows the straight line behavior very closely.

In order to obtain an independent estimate for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, we have plotted the $`\chi ^2`$-deviation from a straight line fit to the data over a range of temperatures around $`T=0.89`$, together with the curvature for three-parameter fits, Figs. 4 and 5. The results indicate straight-line behavior for $`T=0.895\pm 0.015`$ which is an independent measurement of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. In Fig. 5 we also show the effective slope $`\eta (T)`$ from the three-parameter fit. The slope of the straight line at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ gives an estimate of the critical exponent $`\eta =0.74\pm 0.03`$. As far as we are aware of, this is the first published estimate for this parameter for the GG in four dimensions.

With values for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\eta `$ in hand, the whole $`\chi (L,T)`$ data set can be plotted in a standard manner: $`\chi (L,T)/L^{2\eta }`$ as a function of $`L^{1/\nu }(TT_\mathrm{c})`$, adjusting $`\nu `$ to obtain optimal scaling. The results lead to $`1/\nu =1.42\pm 0.03`$, as shown in Fig. 6, and are in agreement with an estimate from the scaling of the currents presented in Fig. 2.

### V.3 Correlation length

The data for the ratio $`\xi _L(T)/L`$ for different sizes are shown in Fig. 7. Although the data appear to cleanly intersect at one point, it can be seen that the intersection temperatures for these sizes are around $`T1.0`$, and are only approaching the true ordering temperature, $`T_\mathrm{c}=0.89`$, very slowly with increasing $`L`$. The comparison with the behavior observed for $`\chi (L)`$ or the current is striking. For each of these two parameters the critical behavior at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is virtually correction-free, while for the same range of small values of $`L`$, the $`\xi _L/L`$ intersections give a very poor indication of the true ordering temperature. There are clearly strong corrections to scaling at small $`L`$ which appear to be intrinsic to this form of measurement.

### V.4 Nonequilibrium susceptibility

Large samples ($`L=10`$ in four dimensions) are initialized in random (infinite temperature) configurations. They are then put in contact with a heat bath at a temperature $`T`$, and the spin-glass susceptibility is recorded as a function of annealing time. At $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ the spin-glass susceptibility will increase as $`t^{(2\eta )/z}`$ until the susceptibility arrives at the equilibrium value for that size $`L`$. We present the data in terms of the scaled time-dependent effective length $`L^{}=At^{1/z}`$ at each temperature. When $`A`$ and $`z`$ are suitably chosen, the equilibrium susceptibility $`\chi (L)`$ and the nonequilibrium susceptibility $`\chi (L^{})`$ before saturation scale well together. An example for a temperature close to $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, $`T=0.894`$, is shown in Fig. 8. From the data, the dynamical scaling exponent $`z(T)`$ can be determined accurately, see Fig. 9. The behavior of the effective dynamical exponent $`z(T)`$ shows no apparent special behavior at the critical temperature. Effective temperature-dependent values $`z(T)`$ have been reported in ISGs for $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$ (see, for instance, Ref. Marinari and Parisi, 2000). We can conclude from the present data for the GG that $`z(T)`$ is a well-defined parameter for a whole range of temperatures including $`T>T_\mathrm{c}`$. At $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$ we estimate $`z=4.50\pm 0.05`$.

### V.5 Autocorrelation function decay

In the GG we have found unexpectedly that $`q(t)`$ only assumes a pure power-law behavior after a relatively long time, of the order of 100 Monte Carlo steps, hereafter referred to as MCS, (as compared with $`5`$ MCS in ISGs), see Fig. 10. For earlier times the decay is affected by short-time corrections. In practice this means that the measurements of $`x(T)`$ as defined above are less precise than in ISGs as they are limited at short times by the correction term and at long times by the condition that the maximum $`t_\mathrm{w}`$ should be much less than $`t`$.

We compare, for a set of temperatures around $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, the value of $`\eta (T)`$ directly obtained from the equilibrium susceptibility measurements with a value calculated indirectly from the $`x(T)`$ and $`z(T)`$ data, $`\eta ^{}(T)=(d2)2z(T)x(T)`$. We expect $`\eta (T)=\eta ^{}(T)`$ at $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$. This can be seen in Fig. 5 where the vertical dashed line marks our estimate of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. The two curves cross at $`T=0.90\pm 0.01`$, $`\eta =0.74\pm 0.02`$, which again defines the ordering temperature and the critical exponent $`\eta `$. As for this particular system $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is already reliably established from the previously mentioned methods, the comparison provides a critical benchmark test for the nonequilibrium technique. The good agreement with the standard methods, such as susceptibility scaling and the crossing of root-mean-square currents in this case shows that this method is reliable, implying that it can be used for other systems.

## VI Three Dimensions

A number of estimates have already been given of the ordering temperature and critical exponents of the GG in dimension three.Olson and Young (2000) In this section we present estimates for the critical temperature and exponents as derived from our simulations. In comparison to the four-dimensional data presented in Sec. V we find strong corrections to scaling in three dimensions. In what follows the different results for different observables are presented.

### VI.1 Root-mean-square current

Olson and YoungOlson and Young (2000) estimated that $`T_\mathrm{c}=0.47\pm 0.03`$ from the intersection of the root-mean-square current induced by an infinitesimal twist along the boundaries. The present current data are shown in Fig. 11. Our results agree with the data of Ref. Olson and Young, 2000 within error bars. A consistent intersection point for all the data taken together occurs at $`T=0.46\pm 0.01`$, with only the data for $`L=3`$ lying slightly below the region of intersection. We conclude that this temperature indeed represents the correct ordering temperature for the system, corrections to finite-size scaling being small for $`L4`$. The precision is limited mainly by the statistical error bars, as the curves for different sizes lie rather close together. A scaling plot of the root-mean-square current according to Eq. (11) is shown in Fig. 12 for $`1/\nu =0.72`$ and $`T_\mathrm{c}=0.46`$.

### VI.2 Equilibrium susceptibility

A log-log plot of the equilibrium susceptibility divided by $`L^2`$ as function of $`L`$ for different temperatures is shown in Fig. 13. In absence of corrections to scaling this plot should be straight at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. We see that for $`T>0.46`$ the data curve down, indicative that we are above the critical temperature. For $`T<0.46`$ the data show a slight upward curvature,cur  in agreement with $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$. Using Eq. (5) at $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$ we obtain $`\eta =0.47\pm 0.02`$ and a correction factor $`(1AL^\omega )`$ with $`\omega 2.5`$ and $`A=0.6`$. For temperatures below $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ a higher effective $`\eta (T)`$ is obtained at each temperature and the correction factor appears to be temperature-independent. The correction term is almost negligible for $`L4`$; if we make straight line fits to $`\mathrm{ln}[\chi (T)/L^2]`$ against $`\mathrm{ln}L`$ for $`L=4`$ to $`8`$, we find $`\chi ^2`$ values which increase sharply above $`T0.40`$, and which rise slowly for temperatures below $`T0.40`$, see Fig. 14.

In both Ising spin glasses and GGs the first term in the RG $`ϵ`$-expansion for the leading irrelevant operator is $`\omega (d)(6d)`$de Dominicis ; Bray  implying that $`\omega `$ will be high in dimension three. High-temperature series expansion data show that $`\omega `$ is greater than $`3`$ in dimension three for the ISGKlein et al. (1991). If we make the plausible assumption that this is the case also for the GG, the leading correction term will be due to the lattice artifact so the correction factor is $`[1+AL^{(2\eta )}]`$. Fits to all 3D GG $`\chi (L,T)`$ data from $`L=2`$ to $`8`$ using this correction factor give a clear minimum in $`\chi ^2`$ as a function of temperature at $`T=0.45\pm 0.02`$ (inset to Fig. 14), which we can identify with $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ . The effective exponent $`\eta _{\mathrm{eff}}(T)`$ is shown in Fig. 16.

An overall scaling plot of $`\chi (L,T)/L^{2\eta }`$ as a function of $`L^{1/\nu }(TT_\mathrm{c})`$ for $`L4`$ is shown in Fig. 15. We estimate $`1/\nu =0.72\pm 0.02`$.

### VI.3 Binder parameter

In spin glasses the Binder parameter $`g`$ defined in Eq. (7) is independent of system size at the transition temperature as it is proportional to a function which only depends on $`L^{1/\nu }(TT_\mathrm{c})`$. Consequently different lines at different temperatures cross at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. In vector systems this is not the case: data for different system sizes splay for $`T>T_\mathrm{c}`$ but not for $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$, as can be seen in Fig. 17. From the data one can, at best, estimate $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ roughly because the data do not cross. The same behavior is found in the three-dimensional $`XY`$ spin glass.Kawamura and Li (2001) This has been ascribed to the ordering being chiral in this model. As no chirality can be defined for the gauge glass, this is not the case here and the behavior of $`g`$ for the GG remains to be understood.

### VI.4 Correlation length

The data for the ratio $`\xi _L(T)/L`$ are shown in Fig. 18. As in four dimensions there are strong finite-size correction effects; in addition, the curves for different $`L`$ lie close together. The intersections between curves for different $`L`$ change with temperature in such a way that from these data alone it would be very hard to identify $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ to better than $`T_\mathrm{c}=0.50\pm 0.05`$.

### VI.5 Nonequilibrium susceptibility

In just the same way as in four dimensions the nonequilibrium susceptibility is recorded for large system sizes, $`L=16`$. The effective dynamical exponent $`z(T)`$ is estimated from the comparison of the time-dependent nonequilibrium susceptibility and the size-dependent equilibrium susceptibility, Fig. 19, and the effective dynamical critical exponent $`z(T)`$ is shown as a function of temperature in Fig. 20. At $`T=0.46`$ we obtain $`z(T)=4.7\pm 0.1`$, in agreement with the results from Ref. Olson and Young, 2000 but with smaller error bars.

### VI.6 Autocorrelation function decay

Corrections to finite time scaling in three dimensions extend to times of the order of 100 MCS, limiting the precision of the measurement of the exponent $`x(T)`$, as in four dimensions. For this particular system the directly measured effective exponent $`\eta (T)`$ and the indirectly estimated $`\eta ^{}(T)`$ are very similar over a range of temperatures, as shown in Fig. 16. Hence it is not possible to obtain an independent measurement of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ using the consistency criterion outlined above (see Fig. 21).

## VII Two Dimensions

The gauge glass in two dimensions has been studied extensively in Refs. Katzgraber and Young, 2002 and Katzgraber, 2003. In particular it was found that for this model $`T_\mathrm{c}=0`$, inferred from the values of critical exponents and several tests made. In this section we present results for off-equilibrium simulations, as well as another test which shows that the system orders at zero temperature in two dimensions.

### VII.1 Correlation length

The GG in dimension two has been extensively studied.Fisher et al. (1991); Gingras (1992); Akino and Kosterlitz (2002); Reger and Young (1993); Katzgraber and Young (2002); Simkin (1996); Granato (1998) Measurements on various observables, in particular the correlation length, have established that the ordering temperature is either zero or much lower than our lowest measuring temperature, $`T=0.13`$.Katzgraber (2003) In Fig. 22 we show correlation length data presented in the form of plots of the ratio $`\xi (2L)/2\xi (L)\xi _{2L}/2\xi _L`$ against $`\xi (L)/L`$. In the absence of corrections to scaling all points should fall on a single scaling curve, which for a finite ordering temperature should pass through $`\xi (2L)/2\xi (L)=1`$ at $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$ \[here $`\xi (L)/L`$ is independent of $`L`$\].Palassini and Caracciolo (1999) For ordering which takes place only at zero temperature the ratio should tend asymptotically to a value which can be less than $`1`$. The data show this form of behavior, demonstrating conclusively that for this system $`T_\mathrm{c}=0`$.

### VII.2 Nonequilibrium scaling

Measurements of the equilibrium susceptibility $`\chi (L)`$ for $`L=4`$ to $`16`$ (or to $`24`$ above $`T=0.20`$) and of the nonequilibrium susceptibility $`\chi (t)`$ for samples of size $`L=64`$ are shown in Fig. 23. As for the other dimensions, the nonequilibrium data are scaled using $`L^{}=At^{1/z}`$ with $`A`$ and $`z`$ chosen at each temperature so that the two sets of susceptibility data scale together. The scaling is particularly satisfactory because a wide range of $`L`$ could be used for the equilibrium measurements, and because the nonequilibrium sample sizes have been chosen such that for all measurements $`L^{}`$ is much smaller than the sample size, so there are no saturation effects at long times. This demonstrates once again, but more clearly than for higher dimensions, that a dynamical exponent $`z(T)`$ can be defined relating the annealing time $`t`$ to an effective length $`L^{}(t)`$ for temperatures well above any critical temperature. The scaling holds to within the present statistical accuracy for the whole range of $`L`$ from $`L=4`$ to $`L=24`$, or alternatively for anneal times from $`2`$ MCS to over $`16000`$ MCS. It appears that the dynamic scaling concept is ubiquitous and is not just valid at critical points. Finally, Fig. 24 shows data for the autocorrelation function $`q(t)`$. One can clearly see that the data, presented in a log-log plot, are strongly curved suggesting that the standard scaling functions for a finite-temperature transition do not apply.

## VIII Comparison of Techniques

We can draw comparisons between the different techniques for estimating $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ and the critical exponents. It should be noted that equilibrium data for the different observables studied are taken within the same runs which allows a comparison of the relative statistical precision of the different measurements for exactly the same computational effort. As an example, for measurements made at $`L=8`$ at $`T=0.461`$ in dimension three and with the simulation parameters listed in Table 2, the spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi `$ is accurate to $`0.5\%`$, the correlation length $`\xi (L)`$ to $`0.7\%`$, the current $`I_{\mathrm{rms}}`$ to $`1.6\%`$ (and the internal energy to $`0.02\%`$) with the quoted errors purely statistical.

The major difficulty in the interpretation of the data is not statistics but corrections to scaling. In the gauge glass the current method turns out to be relatively insensitive to corrections to finite-size scaling and is therefore already reliable for relatively small samples. Averaging over large numbers of samples is, however, essential for these measurements because of strong intrinsic sample to sample fluctuations. In ISGs measurements of the critical behavior of the domain-wall stiffness (see, for instance, Ref. Hukushima, 1999) could well provide an equally efficient and reliable method to estimate $`T_\mathrm{c}`$, applicable quite generally.

Direct analysis of the spin-glass susceptibility $`\chi (L,T)`$ on its own is also reliable and efficient, particularly as the statistical precision of this parameter is high. At $`T=T_\mathrm{c}`$ there is pure power-law behavior, $`\chi (L,T)/L^2L^{\eta (T)}`$. The onset of deviations from the pure power-law behavior below and above the ordering temperature provides a clear signature for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$.

In dimension four, even with the restricted range of $`L`$ available, there is a downward deviation from the pure power law as soon as $`T>T_\mathrm{c}`$, and an upward deviation from the pure power law for temperatures $`T<T_\mathrm{c}`$. Corrections appear to be negligible as the straight line fit at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is excellent even for $`L=2`$.

In dimension three the onset of deviation from a pure power law to a downward curvature at temperatures above $`T0.46`$ gives a clear indication of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ but the low-temperature upturn is weak. Corrections are present as there is a weak curvature at small $`L`$ for all temperatures. If the plausible assumption is made that the leading correction to scaling is the leading analytic term, a precise estimate for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is obtained from fits using all the $`\chi (L,T)`$ data over the whole range of $`L`$. This estimate is consistent with the value from the current measurements.

The susceptibility method (see Secs. V.2 and VI.2) becomes progressively more precise when data for larger samples are available. In the present case, data up to $`L=5`$ only are sufficient for dimension four, but in dimension three it would have been very helpful to have had data up to $`L=12`$; with such data in hand it would be possible to pinpoint the transition temperature to even higher precision from susceptibility measurements alone.

The technique involving the consistency of observables deduced from nonequilibrium scaling and equilibrium susceptibility gives an estimate for $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ which has been found to be in excellent agreement with those obtained from the other methods for dimension four. This despite the presence of short-time corrections to scaling in $`q(t)`$ that were unexpected. In dimension three consistency between alternative methods of estimating parameters holds over a range of temperatures rather than at a unique temperature which could be identified with $`T_\mathrm{c}`$. This accidental consistency has not been observed in other systems and remains to be understood, but means that the technique in this particular case cannot be used to estimate $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ with any precision. The nonequilibrium measurements are relatively economical in computational resources as full thermodynamic equilibration is not required.

Estimates of $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ from the intersections of correlation length ratios $`\xi (L)/L`$ turn out to be misleading in dimension four because of strong intrinsic corrections to finite-size scaling for the small or moderate system sizes to which computational resources generally limit measurements in spin-glass systems at high dimensions. This parameter thus gives a qualitative indication that spin-glass ordering is occurring but it is not reliable for extracting precise values of the ordering temperature from small $`L`$ data even in a situation where other measurements can give consistent and satisfactory estimates for an equivalent range of $`L`$. It can be noted that while corrections to finite-size scaling in measurements of $`\chi (L)`$ appear to be negligible for the GG in dimension four, the corrections for $`\xi (L)/L`$ are still very strong at size $`L=5`$. Even in dimension three where the corrections are weaker, this observable remains a poor tool for estimating the transition temperature. Strong correction effects in $`\xi (L)/L`$ can also be seen in data reported for $`XY`$ spin glassesLee and Young (2003) and have been found in certain ISGs. Therefore the correction effect appears to be generic and this technique should be applied only with caution.

Finally, estimates from the Binder parameter are inappropriate for the GG as the curves for different system sizes do not intersect for the range of $`L`$ over which measurements are carried out. It is possible that there are strong finite-size corrections for this parameter so that intersections would only be seen for much larger $`L`$.

Once $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ has been estimated, the susceptibility measurements at that temperature give immediately the corresponding value of the critical exponent $`\eta `$. The precision for this parameter is limited entirely by the accuracy with which $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is known. The exponent $`\nu `$ is estimated from scaling plots of current data and from scaling plots of susceptibility data. Once again precision is limited by the accuracy with which $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ has been determined. The dynamical exponent $`z`$ can be measured accurately from a comparison of equilibrium and nonequilibrium susceptibilities. The data show that $`z(T)`$ can be estimated operationally over a wide range of $`T`$ including temperatures well above the ordering temperature \[$`z(T)`$ varies continuously through the ordering temperature\].

In the light of this extensive analysis, it would seem appropriate to critically re-assess the estimates for the critical exponents in the ISG family.

## IX Critical Parameters as a Function of Space Dimension

The critical parameters for the GG obtained from this and earlier work are listed in Table 5.

In both dimensions three and four the GG ordering temperatures $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ are roughly half of those for the Gaussian ISG. By interpolation between the zero-temperature current stiffness exponents $`\theta (d)`$ in dimensions 1, 2, and 3,Katzgraber and Young (2002) we can estimate the lower critical dimension for the GG as the dimension at which $`\theta (d)`$ passes through zero: $`d_{\mathrm{lcd}}2.5`$, very similar to that of the ISG systems with continuous interaction distributionsBouchaud et al. (2003); exp  (see Table 6 and Refs. Parisi et al., 1996; Marinari et al., 1998; Campbell et al., 2000; Bhatt and Young, 1988).

The corrections to scaling in the GG follow just the same pattern as in the bimodal ($`\pm J`$) ISGs. In the Gaussian ISG the corrections to scaling for $`\chi (L)`$ at $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ appear very weak and so unmeasurable. In dimension four for both cases the correction to scaling for the susceptibility $`\chi (L)`$ is so weak as to be unobservable even down to $`L=2`$. In dimension three there is a clear correction to scaling for $`\chi (L)`$ which can be fitted satisfactorily to the form $`(1+AL^{\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}})`$. $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}`$ in the ISG case has been interpreted as the leading irrelevant operator correction,Mari and Campbell (2002) and this could also be the case for the three-dimensional GG. However, it seems more likely that the correction is dominated by a “lattice artifact” giving $`\omega _{\mathrm{eff}}=2\eta `$, which has no relation to the leading irrelevant operator.Salas and Sokal (1998, 2000) For both the three-dimensional GG and the three-dimensional bimodal ISG, the value of the apparent correction to scaling exponent is compatible with this interpretation, which would imply that the leading irrelevant operator term has an exponent value $`\omega >2\eta `$.

Finally, we can give an overview of the critical exponents in the GG and ISG families as a function of space dimension. It should be noted that there are some constraints that apply to both families: at the upper critical dimension $`d=6`$, $`\nu =1/2`$, $`\eta =0`$, and $`z=4`$. If $`T_\mathrm{c}=0`$, $`\nu =1/\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the stiffness exponent. Therefore, at the lower critical dimension where the stiffness exponent $`\theta =0`$, $`\nu `$ is infinite. For systems with a nondegenerate ground state (such as the GG or the ISG with Gaussian interactions, but not the ISG with bimodal interactions), when $`T=0`$ there is no decay of the correlation function $`G(r)`$ with $`r`$. This necessarily implies that when $`T_\mathrm{c}=0`$, $`\eta (d)2d`$. \[For systems with degenerate ground states $`\eta (d)>2d`$\].

The leading terms in the RG $`ϵ`$-expansion for the GG are $`\nu (d)=1/2+5ϵ/24`$ and $`\eta (d)=ϵ/6`$. For the ISG $`\nu (d)=1/2+5ϵ/12`$ and $`\eta (d)=ϵ/3`$.Green (1985); Moore and Murphy (1990) It can be seen in Figs. 25 and 26, respectively, that in the GG as well as for the ISG the leading $`ϵ`$-expansion term gives the right sign and a qualitative indication of the strength of the variations of the exponents just below the upper critical dimension. The leading terms in the expansion for $`\eta `$ cannot, however, be used to predict that the $`\eta (d)`$ values are much more negative in the GG than in the ISG. The observed exponents deviate strongly from the curves calculated to third order for the ISG where the second and third order expansion terms are very large. This deviation is smaller for the GG. The leading term in the $`ϵ`$-expansion for the exponent $`\nu `$ works better, with $`\nu (d)`$ being higher for the GG than for the ISG, in agreement with the relative strengths of the leading terms (including higher order terms would entirely destroy the agreement). This is all in striking contrast to the canonical ferromagnets (Ising, $`XY`$, or Heisenberg) without disorder, where the third order $`ϵ`$-expansion correction gives excellent predictions for $`\eta (d)`$ an $`\nu (d)`$.

If we look at the overall behavior of the exponents over the whole range of $`d`$, the shape of the $`\nu (d)`$ curves is fairly similar for the GG and Gaussian ISG families, although the divergence at the lower critical dimension $`d_{\mathrm{lcd}}2.5`$ is distinctly narrower in the GG case. The shapes of the $`\eta (d)`$ curves are on the other hand dramatically different. The leading terms in the $`ϵ`$-expansions agree poorly with the data even for $`d=4`$, with an inversion of the measured positions of $`\eta (d)`$ as compared with the expansion predictions. For the Gaussian ISG family $`\eta (d)`$ decreases as the dimension drops from the upper critical dimension to the lower critical dimension. For the GG there is a deep minimum in $`\eta (d)`$ somewhere in the region of $`d=4`$ (data at $`d=5`$ would be needed to pin down the position of the minimum). In spin glasses, simply going from Ising to vector spins changes this exponent considerably, whereas in three-dimensional ferromagnets $`\eta `$ is very small and practically independent of the type of spin symmetry.

Finally, in Fig. 27 the critical dynamical exponent $`z(d)`$ can be compared near $`d=6`$ with the van Hove approximation $`z=2(2\eta )`$,Zippelius (1984) or for the ISG case with the first order $`ϵ`$-expansion $`z=2(2\eta )/(1+ϵ/4)`$.Parisi and Ranieri (1997) The van Hove expression can provide a qualitative indication for $`z(d)`$ once the numerical values of $`\eta (d)`$ are known, but if the directly measured $`\eta (d)`$ values are used rather than the epsilon expansion estimates, this expression would predict higher $`z`$ values at each $`d`$ for the GG compared with the ISG values, which is not what is observed. $`z(d)`$ must diverge at the lower critical dimension, while curiously the GG $`z(d)`$ values only increase slightly between $`d=4`$ and $`d=3`$. For the Gaussian ISG, $`z(d)`$ shows an indication of divergence as the space dimension drops.

## X Concluding remarks

We have studied the critical parameters of the GG, in dimensions two, three and four. The data confirm that $`T_\mathrm{c}`$ is zero in two dimensions. It appears that the most reliable and accurate methods for estimating critical temperature and exponent values are direct susceptibility measurements, effective stiffness measurements (current measurements in the GG case), and a combination of nonequilibrium and susceptibility measurements. In each case corrections to scaling are either so small as to be negligible or can be taken into account. Binder parameter measurements are inappropriate as the Binder parameter curves do not intersect, at least for the system sizes used, and correlation length measurements are not always reliable because there can be strong deviations from finite-size scaling.

From these results a general strategy for obtaining (high-precision) critical parameters numerically in any glassy system can be sketched out. It is essential to be able to rely on high-quality equilibrium susceptibility data over a wide range of sizes and to as large a size as computational resources allow. Careful analysis of these data allowing for the leading correction to scaling term should provide reliable estimates of the ordering temperature and of the equilibrium critical exponents. Further measurements of the effective stiffness as a function of temperature together with nonequilibrium behavior can then confirm the value of the ordering temperature and give further information on other exponents including the critical dynamical exponent $`z`$. Parameters involving ratios (such as the Binder parameter or the correlation length) seem frequently to be biased, at small and moderate sizes, by complicated corrections to scaling and should be treated with caution.

If we compare with other systems having $`d=6`$ as upper critical dimension, ISGs and percolation, the exponent $`\nu (d)`$ always evolves regularly, diverging when the dimension reaches the lower critical dimension. The exponent $`\eta (d)`$ on the other hand changes dramatically in form from one family to the next. For the Gaussian ISG $`\eta (d)`$ grows smoothly more negative as the dimension drops from the upper critical dimension to the lower critical dimension. For the percolation systems $`\eta (d)`$ has a weak minimum around $`d=3`$ before becoming positive at $`d=2`$.Adler et al. (1990) The present results show that for the GG there is a deep minimum in $`\eta (d)`$ near $`d=4`$. This is in stark contrast to the situation in the canonical Ising, $`XY`$, or Heisenberg systems with no disorder where $`\eta (d)`$ hardly changes at all when the degrees of freedom of the spin are modified. In addition, for the canonical systems the RG $`ϵ`$-expansion to third order gives excellent predictions for the exponents at dimensions well below the upper critical dimension, while for the ISG and GG systems the $`ϵ`$-expansion to the same orderGreen (1985); Moore and Murphy (1990) gives poor predictions for dimensions quite close to the upper critical dimension $`d=6`$.

We have thus proposed a road plan for determining critical exponents reliably and accurately from simulations; however, the results confirm once again that the canonical RG theory lacks essential ingredients when applied to glassy systems. The physical significance of the exponent values obtained, however good they are, must remain obscure until the appropriate theoretical approach going beyond the traditional RG is found for interpreting them.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank J. Salas for helpful correspondence. C. De Dominicis and A. J. Bray kindly supplied us with the leading term for the exponent $`\omega `$ in the $`ϵ`$-expansion for the ISG and the GG cases, respectively. The simulations were performed on the Asgard cluster at ETH Zürich.


format: text

text:
# A Pulsed Synchrotron for Muon Acceleration at a Neutrino Factory

5th International Workshop on Neutrino Factories and Superbeams (NuFact ’03), 5-11 Jun 2003, New York

## Abstract

A 4600 Hz pulsed synchrotron is considered as a means of accelerating cool muons with superconducting RF cavities from 4 to 20 GeV/c for a neutrino factory. Eddy current losses are held to less than a megawatt by the low machine duty cycle plus 100 micron thick grain oriented silicon steel laminations and 250 micron diameter copper wires. Combined function magnets with 20 T/m gradients alternating within single magnets form the lattice. Muon survival is 83%.

Historically synchrotrons have provided economical particle acceleration. Here we consider a pulsed muon synchrotron nufact02  for a neutrino factory factory . The accelerated muons are stored in a racetrack to produce neutrino beams ($`\mu ^{}e^{}\overline{\nu }_e\nu _\mu `$ and $`\mu ^+e^+\nu _e\overline{\nu }_\mu `$). Neutrino oscillations have been observed at experiments homestake  such as Homestake, Super–Kamiokande, SNO, and KamLAND. Further exploration using a neutrino factory could reveal CP violation in the lepton sector oscillation .

This synchrotron must accelerate muons from 4 to 20 GeV/c with moderate decay loss ($`\tau _{\mu ^\pm }`$ = 2.2 $`\mu `$S), using magnet power supplies with reasonable voltages. To reduce voltage, magnet gaps are minimized to store less magnetic energy. Cool muons cool  with low beam emittance allow this. Acceleration to 4 GeV/c might feature fixed field dogbone arcs dogbone ; berg  to minimize muon decay loss. Fast ramping synchrotrons dogbone ; snowmass  might also accelerate very cool muons to higher energies for a $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ collider collider .

FIGURE 1.

We form arcs with sequences of combined function cells within continuous long magnets, whose poles are alternately shaped to give focusing gradients of each sign. A cell has been simulated using SYNCH synch . Gradients alternate from positive 20 T/m gradient (2.24 m long), to zero gradient (.4 m long) to negative 20 T/m gradient (2.24 m) to zero gradient (0.4 m), etc. See Fig. 1 and Table 1. It is proposed to use 5 such arc cells to form an arc segment. These segments are alternated with straight sections containing RF. The phase advance through one arc segment is 5 x 720 = 3600. This being so, dispersion suppression between straights and arcs can be omitted. There are 18 arc segments and 18 straight sections, forming 18 superperiods in the ring. Straight sections (22 m) without dispersion are used for superconducting RF, and, in two longer straights (44 m), the injection and extraction. To assure sufficiently low magnetic fields at the cavities, relatively long field free regions are desirable. A straight consisting of two half cells would allow a central gap of 10 m between quadrupoles, and two smaller gaps at the ends. Details are given in Table 3. Matching between the arcs and straights is not yet designed. The total circumference of the ring including combined functions magnets and straight sections adds up to 917 m ($`18\times 26.5+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}\times 22+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\times 44`$).

TABLE 1. Combined function magnet cell parameters. 5 cells/arc. 18 arcs form the ring.

| Cell length | 5.28 m |
| --- | --- |
| Combined Dipole length | 2.24 m |
| Combined Dipole Bcentral | 0.9 T |
| Combined Dipole Gradient | 20.2 T/m |
| Pure Dipole Length | 0.4 m |
| Pure Dipole B | 1.8 T |
| Momentum | 20 GeV/c |
| Phase advance/cell | 720 |
| beta max | 8.1 m |
| Dispersion max | 0.392 m |
| Norm. Trans. Acceptance | 4 $`\pi `$ mm rad |

TABLE 2. Superconducting RF.

| Frequency | 201 MHz |
| --- | --- |
| Gap | .75 m |
| Gradient | 15 MV/m |
| Stored Energy | 900 J |
| Muons per train | $`5\times 10^{12}`$ |
| Orbits (4 to 20 GeV/c) | 12 |
| No. of RF Cavities | 160 |
| RF Total | 1800 MV |
| $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$U$`_{\text{beam}}`$ | 110 J |
| Energy Loading | .082 |
| Voltage Drop | .041 |
| Acceleration Time | 37 $`\mu `$S |
| Muon Survival | .83 |

The superconducting RF (see Fig. 1 and Table 2 and note that 11 MV/m has been achieved so far hartill ) must be distributed around the ring to avoid large differences between the beam momentum (which rises in steps at each RF section) and the magnetic field (which rises continuously). The amount of RF is a tradeoff between cost and muon survival. Time dilation permits extra orbits with little muon decay if the RF sags.

TABLE 3. Straight section lattice parameters.

| $`\varphi `$ | 77 0 |
| --- | --- |
| Lcell/2 | 11 m |
| Lquad | 1 m |
| dB/dx | 7.54 T/m |
| a | 5.8 cm |
| $`\beta _{\mathrm{max}}`$ | 36.6 m |
| $`\sigma _{\mathrm{max}}`$ | 1.95 cm |
| Bpole | 0.44 T |
| Umag/quad | $``$ 3000 J |

TABLE 4. Permeability ($`B/\mu _0H`$). Grain oriented silicon (3% Si) steel has a far higher permeability parallel ($``$) to than perpendicular ($``$) to its rolling direction armco . Grain oriented silicon steel permits high fields with little energy ($`B^2/2\mu `$) stored in the yoke.

| Material | 1.0 T | 1.5 T | 1.8 T |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1008 Steel | 3000 | 2000 | 200 |
| Grain Oriented ($``$) | 40000 | 30000 | 3000 |
| Grain Oriented ($``$) | 4000 | 1000 |  |

The muons accelerate from 4 to 20 GeV. If they are extracted at 95% of full field they will be injected at 19% of full field. For acceleration with a plain sine wave, injection occurs at 110 and extraction occurs at 720. So the phase must change by 610 in 37 $`\mu `$S. Thus the sine wave goes through 3600 in 218 $`\mu `$sec, giving 4600 Hz.

Estimate the energy stored in each 26.5 m long combined function magnet. The gap is about .14 m wide and has an average height of h = .06 m. Assume an average field of 1.1 Tesla. The permeability constant, $`\mu _0`$, is $`4\pi \times 10^7`$. $`W=B^2/2\mu _0[\text{Volume}]=`$ 110 000 Joules. Next given one turn (N = 1), an LC circuit capacitor, and a 4600 Hz frequency; estimate current, inductance, capacitance, and voltage.

$`B={\displaystyle \frac{\mu _0NI}{h}}I={\displaystyle \frac{Bh}{\mu _0N}}=52\text{kA;}`$ $`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}LI^2L={\displaystyle \frac{2W}{\text{}I^2}}=80\mu \text{H}`$ (1)
$`f={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{LC}}}C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{L(2\pi f)^2}}=15\mu \text{F;}`$ $`W={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}CV^2V=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2W}{C}}}=120\text{kV}`$ (2)
The stack of SCRs driving each coil might be center tapped to halve the 120 kV. Nine equally spaced 6 cm coil slots could be created in the top and bottom of each yoke using 6 cm of taller laminations to cut the voltage by ten, while leaving the pole faces continuous. 6 kV is easier to insulate than 120 kV. It will be useful to shield nufact02  and/or chamfer school  magnet ends to avoid large eddy currents where the field lines typically do not follow laminations. Neutrino horn power supplies are of interest.

Calculate the resistive energy loss in the copper coils. There are two 5 cm square copper conductors each 5300 cm long. R = $`5300(1.8\mu \mathrm{\Omega }\text{-cm})/(2)(5^2)=190\mu \mathrm{\Omega }.`$ So, $`P=I^2R_0^{2\pi }\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta )𝑑\theta =\text{260\hspace{0.17em}000 w/magnet}.`$ Eighteen magnets give a total loss of 4680 kW. But the neutrino factory runs at 30 Hz. Thirty half cycles of 109 $`\mu `$sec per second gives a duty factor of 300 and a total $`I^2R`$ loss of 16 kW. Muons are orbited in opposite directions on alternate cycles. If this proves too cumbersome, the duty cycle factor could be lowered to 150. See if .25 mm (30 gauge) wire is usable. The skin depth lorrain , $`\delta `$, of copper at 4600 Hz is $`(\rho /\pi f\mu _0)^{1/2}`$ = $`(1.8\times 10^8/\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4600}\mu _0)^{1/2}`$ = 0.97 mm.

Now calculate the dissipation due to eddy currents sasaki  in a $`w`$ = .25 mm wide conductor, which consists of transposed strands to reduce this loss school ; sasaki . To get an idea, take the maximum B-field during a cycle to be that generated by a 0.025m radius conductor carrying 26 kA. The eddy current loss in a conductor made of square wires .25 mm wide (Litz wire mws ) with a perpendicular magnetic field is as follows. $`B=\mu _0I/2\pi r=0.2`$ Tesla.

$$P=\text{[Volume]}\frac{(2\pi fBw)^2}{24\rho }=[\mathrm{2\; .05}^253]\frac{(2\pi \mathrm{4600\; .2\; .00025})^2}{(24)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1.8}\times 10^8}=1400\text{kW}$$
(3)
Multiply by 18 magnets and divide by a duty factor of 300 to get an eddy current loss in the copper of 85 kW. Stainless steel water cooling tubes will dissipate a similar amount of power dogbone . Alloy titanium cooling tubes would dissipate half as much.

Grain oriented silicon steel is chosen for the yoke due to its high permeability at high field at noted in Table 4. The skin depth lorrain , $`\delta `$, of a lamination is $`(\rho /\pi f\mu )^{1/2}`$ = $`(47\times 10^8/\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4600\hspace{0.17em}1000}\mu _0)^{1/2}`$ = 160 $`\mu `$m. $`\rho `$ is resistivity. Take $`\mu =1000\mu _0`$ as a limit on magnetic saturation and hence energy storage in the yoke. Next estimate the fraction of the yoke inductance that remains after eddy currents shield the laminations lucent . The lamination thickness, $`t`$, is 100 $`\mu `$m arnold . L/L0 = $`(\delta /t)(\mathrm{sinh}(t/\delta )+\mathrm{sin}(t/\delta ))/(\mathrm{cosh}(t/\delta )+\mathrm{cos}(t/\delta ))`$ = 0.995. So it appears that magnetic fields can penetrate 100 $`\mu `$m thick laminations at 4600 Hz. Thicker 175 $`\mu `$m laminations armco  would be half as costly and can achieve a bit higher packing fraction. L/L0($`t`$ = 175 $`\mu `$m) = 0.956.

Do the eddy current losses sasaki  in the 100 $`\mu `$m thick iron laminations. Use equation 3 with a quarter meter square area, a 26.5 m length, and an average field of 1.1 Tesla. P = $`[(26.5)(.5^2)](2\pi \mathrm{2600\; 1.1\; .0001})^2/[(24)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}47}\times 10^8]`$ = 5900 kW. Multiply by 18 magnets and divide by a duty factor of 300 to get an eddy current loss in the iron laminations of 350 kW or 700 watts/m of magnet. So the iron will need some cooling. The ring only ramps 30 times per second, so the $`𝐇𝑑𝐁`$ hysteresis losses will be low, even more so because of the low coercive force (Hc = 0.1 Oersteds) of grain oriented silicon steel. This value of Hc is eight times less than 1008 low carbon steel.

The low duty cycle of the neutrino factory leads to eddy current losses of less than a megawatt in a 4600 Hz, 917 m circumference ring. Gradients are switched within dipoles to minimize eddy current losses in ends. Muon survival is 83%.

This work was supported by the U. S. DOE and NSF. Many thanks to K. Bourkland, S. Bracker lasker , C. Jensen, S. Kahn, H. Pfeffer, G. Rees, Y. Zhao, and M. Zisman.


text:
# Evolution of galaxies in triaxial halos with figure rotation

## 1. Kinematics of dark matter halos and galaxy evolution

Although several attempts have been so far made to reveal the shapes (e.g., the degree of oblateness or triaxiality) of dark matter halos in galaxies (e.g., Sackett & Sparke 1990; Franx, van Gorkom, & de Zeeuw 1994; Olling 1995; Salucci & Persic 1997; Sackett 2003 in this conference), rotational properties of dark matter halos have been less discussed. Based on the detailed analysis of structure and kinematics of the very extended HI disk around NGC 2915, Bureau et al (1999) first suggested that the observed spiral-like structures in the HI disk can be formed by a triaxial halo with figure rotation. However, it is unclear whether a triaxial dark halo with figure rotation is really responsible for the observed extended spiral structures in NGC 2915, because of the lack of numerical studies of gas dynamics in the gravitational potentials of triaxial halos with figure rotation. Also it is an important problem to understand how figure rotation of a dark matter halo in a disk galaxy influences dynamical evolution, star formation history, and chemical evolution of the disk, because previous theoretical/numerical studies so far have not extensively investigated such influence of figure rotation of dark matter halos. Therefore, we here investigate numerically (1) whether the observed NGC 2915’s giant HI spirals can be formed by tidal force of the figure rotation of the triaxial dark halo and (2) how the figure rotation of a triaxial dark halo in a disk galaxy influences the formation of stellar bars and spiral arms within it.

## 2. Evidences of a triaxial halo with figure rotation ?

We consider an extended uniform gas disk of a dwarf galaxy embedded by a triaxial dark matter halo with figure rotation. We adopt TREESPH codes described in Bekki (1997) for hydrodynamical evolution of galaxies and thereby investigate the dynamical evolution of the gas disk under the triaxial dark halo (The details of the model are given in Bekki & Freeman 2002). The unusually extended HI gas in NGC 2915 is modeled as an uniform thin gas disk with the size (represented by $`R_\mathrm{g}`$) of 15 kpc and the mass ($`M_\mathrm{g}`$) of 108 $`M_{}`$. The gas disk with uniform radial density distribution is represented by 20K SPH particles and each gas particle is first placed in the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane and given its circular velocity (determined by the dark matter halo) at its radius. The gas disk is then inclined by $`\theta `$ degree with respect to the $`x`$-$`y`$ plane. An isothermal equation of state is used for the gas with a temperature of $`1.2\times 10^3`$ K corresponding to a sound speed of 4 km $`\mathrm{s}^1`$ ($``$ 0.075 times the virial velocity of the system). This extended and inclined gas disk is assumed to be dynamically affected only by a massive dark matter halo with the mass $`M_{\mathrm{DM}}`$ of 1010 $`M_{}`$ and we adopt the density distribution of the NFW halo (Navarro, Frenk & White 1996) suggested from CDM simulations:

$$\rho (r)=\frac{\rho _0}{(r/r_\mathrm{s})(1+r/r_\mathrm{s})^2},$$
(1)
where $`\rho _0`$ and $`r_\mathrm{s}`$ are the central density and the scale length of a dark halo, respectively. We take the isodensity surfaces of the dark halo to be triaxial ellipsoids on which the Cartesian coordinates ($`x`$,$`y`$,$`z`$) satisfy the following condition (Binney & Tremaine 1987):

$$m^2\frac{x^2}{a^2}+\frac{y^2}{b^2}+\frac{z^2}{c^2}=constant,$$
(2)
where $`a`$, $`b`$, and $`c`$ are the parameters which determine the two axis ratios of a triaxial body (i.e., long to short and long to middle). In the present study, $`a`$ is set to be 1 and the long-axis is initially coincident with the $`x`$ axis. Accordingly $`b`$ ($``$ 1) and $`c`$ ($``$ 1) are free parameters which determine the shapes of triaxial dark matter halos. The triaxial halo is assumed to be rotating as a solid body with the pattern speed of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{p}`$. By changing the parameters $`R_\mathrm{g}`$, $`\theta `$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{p}`$, we investigate morphological evolution of extended gas disks and its dependence on shapes and rotational properties of triaxial halos. The parameter values of $`R_\mathrm{g}`$, $`\theta `$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{p}`$ are 15 kpc, 30, 0.8, 0.6, and 3.84 km s-1 kpc-1, respectively, in the standard model (Model 1). In the following, our units of mass, length, and time are $`10^{10}`$ M (= MDM), 15 kpc, and 2.74 $`\times `$ $`10^8`$ yr, respectively.

Figure 1 describes how gaseous spiral arms are formed, as the triaxial halo rigidly rotates in the standard model (Model 1). Owing to the difference in angular speed between the gas disk and the triaxial halo, the gas disk continuously suffer from the strong tidal force of the halo. As a natural result of this, two open trailing arms are gradually developed in the entire disk within 1 Gyr ($`T`$ = 4). These two open arms quickly wind with each other to form a central high-density, ring-like structure at $`R`$ $``$ 0.3 (4.5 kpc) in our units ($`T`$ = 6 and 8). Annular low-density gaseous regions (0.3 $``$ $`R`$ $``$ 0.5 in our units) forms just outside the inner ring because of the disk’s angular momentum redistribution caused by the halo’s torque ($`T`$ = 10). Thus our simulations first confirms the early suggestion (Bureau et al. 1999) that the observed unusually extended spiral arms of NGC 2915 can be due to the tidal torque of the triaxial dark matter halo with figure rotation.

## 3. Bar formation by triaxial dark halos with figure rotation

Figure rotation of triaxial dark matter halos can significantly influence not only the formation of stellar bars, spiral arms, and warps but also gas dynamics and star formation histories in gas-rich galaxies (Bekki & Freeman 2002; Bekki & Freeman 2003, in preparation). Here we summarize briefly numerical results on stellar bar formation (hereafter “halo-triggered bar” formation) in disk galaxies embedded by triaxial (and spherically symmetric) dark matter halos with and without figure rotation (The details of the numerical models will be given in Bekki & Freeman 2003). Based on fully self-consistent models (i.e., “live” halo, and self-gravitating exponential disks), we numerically investigated the shapes and the pattern speed of bars formed in disks embedded by dark matter halos with different pattern speeds of figure rotation, different radial density profiles (e.g., with or without central cusps/cores), different mass ratios of halos to disks ($`f_{\mathrm{dm}}`$), and different shapes of the halos.

The results are summarized as follows: (1) Stellar bars can be formed in disks embedded by triaxial dark halos with figure rotation, even if $`f_{\mathrm{dm}}`$ is 5, for which no bars can form in models with spherically symmetric halos, (2) Triaxial shapes and figure rotation disappears a few Gyr after the formation of stellar bars in the halos owing to the mutual dynamical interaction (i.e., dynamical friction) between disk and halo components, (3) Stellar bars are less likely to form in dark halos with cuspy radial distributions of the halos (i.e., bar formation is more likely in halos with the density profiles decribed by Salucci & Burkert 2000), (4) The pattern speeds of the developed bars in triaxial dark matter halos with figure rotation and with larger $`f_{\mathrm{dm}}`$ ($`>`$ 10) are much lower than those of bars formed in a spontaneous way (i.e., due to bar instability) for massive disk models ($`f_{\mathrm{dm}}2`$), and (5) Morphological properties of halo-triggered bars appear to be more similar to those of “tidal bars” (Noguchi & Ishibashi 1986) that can be formed in interacting/merging galaxies.

## 4. Implications: Halo-triggered starbursts and bar formation at high redshifts

The above result (1) implies that bar formation is still possible in low luminosity LSBs that are observed to be dominated by dark matter halos, if the halos have figure rotation. If disk galaxies grow slowly by accretion of gas and satellite galaxies over $``$ 10 Gyr, (younger) high-z disk galaxies are likely to have larger $`f_{\mathrm{dm}}`$ and thus be less likely to develop stellar bars within the disks owing to spontaneous bar instability. Therefore, if high-z disk galaxies have bars, some of these disks could be embedded by triaxial dark halos with figure rotation. The above result (2) implies that lower-z dark halos are less likely to show triaxial shapes and figure rotation because of the long-term dynamical interaction between the halo-triggered bars and the halos. Regarding this point, BCD NGC 2915 and its triaxial halo could be formed relatively recently (though we can not specify the possible physical reasons for its late formation).

Non-axisymmetric barred structures (either in dark matter halos or in stellar disks) have been suggested to cause rapid and efficient radial gas transfer to the central regions of galaxies and thus be responsible for the formation of central starbursts (e.g., Noguchi & Ishibashi 1986; Bekki & Freeman 2002). Our numerical results accordingly suggest that (a) starbursts in galaxies can be triggered by tidal force of their triaxial dark halos with figure rotation and (b) such halo-triggered starbursts are possible even in the higher redshift universe where disk galaxies are less strongly self-gravitating and spontaneous bar formation is thus highly unlikely, if the halos have figure rotation. We therefore suggest that star formation histories of disk galaxies can be significantly different between those with and without triaxial shapes and figure rotation of dark matter halos at high redshifts. Lastly we stress that we have so far shown just two examples of the possible important roles of figure rotation of triaxial dark halos in galaxy evolution: Several important gravitational effects of these halos are yet to be explored such as dynamical effects of these halos on warp formation and on growth of central bulges in disk galaxies.

## References

Bekki, K., 1997, ApJ, 483, 608

Bekki, K., & Freeman, K. C., 2002, ApJL, 574, 21

Binney, J., & Tremaine, S., 1987 in Galactic Dynamics

Bureau, M., Freeman, K. C., Pfitzner, D. W., & Meurer, G. R. 1999, AJ, 118, 2158

Franx, M., van Gorkom, J. H., & de Zeeuw, T., 1994, ApJ, 436, 642

Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M., 1996, ApJ, 462, 563

Noguchi, M., & Ishibashi, S., 1986, MNRAS, 219, 305

Olling, R. P. 1995, AJ, 110, 591

Sackett, P. D., & Sparke, L. S., 1990, ApJ, 361, 408

Salucci, P.i, & Persic, M., 1997, in Dark and Visible Matter in Galaxies, ed. M. Persic and P. Salucci ASP conf. ser. Vol. 117, p1,

Salucci, P., & Burkert, A., 2000, ApJL, 537, 9