text:
# Off equilibrium response function in the one dimensional random field Ising model

## I Introduction

A phase ordering system, such as a ferromagnet quenched below the critical point, offers the simplest example of slow relaxation with many of the interesting features observed also in more complex glassy systems. At the core of this phenomenology is the separation of the time scales of fast and slow variables. In a domain forming system equilibrium is rapidly reached in the interior of domains while the interfacial degrees of freedom remain out of equilibrium for a time which diverges with the size of the system. In these conditions the order parameter autocorrelation function splits into the sum

$$G(t,t_w)=G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)+G_{\text{ag}}(t/t_w)$$
(1)
where $`G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)`$ is the stationary time translation invariant (TTI) contribution due to fluctuations in the bulk of domains and $`G_{\text{ag}}(t/t_w)`$ is the aging, or scaling contribution originating in the off equilibrium fluctuations. In the time scale over which $`G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)`$ decays to zero $`G_{\text{ag}}(t/t_w)`$ stays practically constant at $`M^2`$, where $`M`$ is the equilibrium value of the order parameter, while the decay of $`G_{\text{ag}}(t/t_w)`$ takes place for much larger time separations. Using $`G(t,t)=1`$ for spin variables, this implies $`G_{\text{st}}(0)=1M^2`$.

A structure similar to (1) is observed also in the linear response at the time $`t`$ to a random external field switched on at the earlier time $`t_w`$

$$\chi (t,t_w)=\chi _{\text{st}}(tt_w)+\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)$$
(2)
where the stationary contributions $`\chi _{\text{st}}(tt_w)`$ and $`G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)`$ are related by the equilibrium fluctuation dissipation theorem (FDT)

$$T\chi _{\text{st}}(tt_w)=G_{\text{st}}(0)G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)$$
(3)
and $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ is the off equilibrium extra response. Notice that (3) may be read as the statement that $`\chi _{\text{st}}(tt_w)`$ depends on time through $`G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)`$. Mean field theory for glassy systems predicts that in the asymptotic time region this holds also off equilibrium with $`\chi (t,t_w)=\widehat{\chi }(G(t,t_w))`$. If this is the case and if $`lim_t\mathrm{}\chi (t,t_w)=\chi _{\text{eq}}`$ then static and dynamic properties are connected by the relation

$$T\frac{d^2\widehat{\chi }(G)}{dG^2})_{G=q}=P_{\text{eq}}(q)$$
(4)
where $`\chi _{\text{eq}}`$ and $`P_{\text{eq}}(q)`$ are the linear susceptibility and the overlap probability distribution in the equilibrium state. Applying the scheme to phase ordering we should find

$$T\frac{d^2\widehat{\chi }(G)}{dG^2})_{G=q}=\delta (qM^2)$$
(5)
since the overlap function in the equilibrium state is given by the delta function. On the other hand (3) may be rewritten as $`T\chi _{\text{st}}(tt_w)=[1(G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)+M^2)]`$ and, if $`t_w`$ is sufficiently large, parameterizing time through the full autocorrelation function we have

$$T\widehat{\chi }_{\text{st}}(G)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1G\hfill & \text{, for }M^2G1\hfill \\ 1M^2\hfill & \text{, for }G<M^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
which gives $`T\frac{d^2}{dG^2}\widehat{\chi }_{\text{st}}(G))_{G=q}=\delta (qM^2)`$. Hence, for (4) to hold one must necessarily have

$$\underset{t_w\mathrm{}}{lim}\chi (t,t_w)=\widehat{\chi }_{\text{st}}(G)$$
(7)
and $`lim_{t_w\mathrm{}}\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)=0`$. Numerical simulations for the Ising model in $`d=2`$ and $`d=3`$ as well as analytical results for the spherical model indeed show evidence that (7) is asymptotically satisfied. More precisely, one expects the off equilibrium contribution to the response function to scale as $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)=t_w^a\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\text{ag}}(t/t_w)`$ with $`a=1/2`$ on the basis of the argument that $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ is proportional to the interface density $`\rho _I(t)L^1(t)`$ where $`L(t)t^{1/z}`$ is the typical domain size and $`z=2`$ for non conserved order parameter dynamics.

Motivated by analytical results for the one dimensional Ising model which, instead, give $`a=0`$, recently a detailed study of the behavior of the response function has been undertaken finding an interesting dependence of the exponent $`a`$ on space dimensionality. This is best explained in terms of the effective response $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ due to a single interface and defined by

$$\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)=\rho _I(t)\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w).$$
(8)
In this form the behavior of $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ appears to be determined by the balance between the interface loss due to coarsening and the response associated to a single interface. If one requires $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)\rho _I(t)`$ clearly $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ must be a constant. In Ref. it was found that for an Ising system this is the case only for $`d>3`$, while for $`d<3`$ there is the power law growth

$$\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)(tt_w)^\alpha $$
(9)
with numerical values for the exponent at different dimensionalities compatible with $`\alpha =(3d)/4`$. At $`d=3`$ the power law is replaced by logarithmic growth. It has been conjectured that this dimensionality dependence of $`\alpha `$ is the outcome of the competition between the curvature of interfaces and the external perturbing field in the drive of interface motion. According to this picture $`d=3`$ is the dimensionality above which interface motion is dominated by the curvature, while below $`d=3`$ the external field competes effectively with the curvature. The more so the lower is the dimensionality, until in $`d=1`$ interfaces reduce to pointlike objects driven only by the external field. When this happens, the rate of growth of the single interface response matches exactly the rate of loss of the interface density, with $`\alpha =1/2`$ and $`a=0`$. Then, $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ does not vanish as $`t_w\mathrm{}`$ and the second term in (2) contributes to $`\widehat{\chi }(G)`$ producing the violation of (4). In short, dimensionality acts as the control parameter which allows to modulate the competition between the two opposing mechanisms driving interface motion and summarized by

$$a=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\hfill & \text{, for }d>3\hfill \\ \frac{d1}{4}\hfill & \text{, for }d3\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
In this paper we investigate a generalization of this phenomenon occurring in the framework of the random field Ising model (RFIM), which further clarifies how the overall behavior of $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ originates in the interplay between the rate of growth of the single interface response function and the rate of loss of defect density. Here we specialize to the $`d=1`$ RFIM. In this case domain walls perform random walks in a random potential of the Sinai type. The crucial feature of this walk, from our perspective, is the crossover between the preasymptotic regime, characterized by free diffusion as in the pure system, and the asymptotic regime characterized by Sinai diffusion. Measuring $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ and $`\rho _I(t)`$, in the preasymptotic regime we shall find

$$\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)\rho _I^1(t)$$
(11)
as in the pure system. Namely, as long as diffusion takes place in a flat landscape the rate of growth of $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ does not go below the rate of loss of interfaces. However, going over to the asymptotic regime the landscape becomes rugged and activated processes do play a role. When this happens $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ slows down with respect to $`\rho _I(t)`$ eventually reaching

$$\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)\rho _I^{1/2}(t)$$
(12)
which leads to the vanishing of $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$. Through this mechanism the validity of (4) is restored in the $`d=1`$ RFIM.

## II Unperturbed system

In the following we consider the $`d=1`$ Ising model with Hamiltonian

$$[\sigma _i]=J\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\sigma _i\sigma _{i+1}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}h_i\sigma _i$$
(13)
where $`J>0`$ is the ferromagnetic coupling and $`h_i=\pm h_0`$ is an uncorrelated random field with expectations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}E_h(h_i)=0\hfill & \\ E_h(h_ih_j)=h_0^2\delta _{ij}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(14)
Here $`h_i`$ is not a perturbing field, so $`h_0`$ does not have to be small. We will consider the two different dynamical evolutions taking place when the system is quenched to the final temperature $`T`$ starting from the two initial states:

i) the system is prepared into a spin configuration containing a single interface

$$\sigma _i=\text{sgn}(i)$$
(15)
ii) the system is in equilibrium at infinite temperature with the uniform measure

$$𝒫_0[\sigma _i]=2^N.$$
(16)
In order to have a phase ordering process the equilibrium state at the final temperature of the quench must be ordered. In the $`d=1`$ RFIM this is not possible even at $`T=0`$, since the size of the ordered domains is limited by the Imry Ma length $`L_{IM}=\frac{4J^2}{h_0^2}`$. So, we take the limit of an infinite ferromagnetic coupling $`J\mathrm{}`$ in order to have $`L_{IM}=\mathrm{}`$. In this case the equilibrium state is the mixture of the two ordered states

$$𝒫_{\text{eq}}[\sigma _i]=\frac{1}{Z}e^{\frac{1}{T}[\sigma _i]}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}\delta (\sigma _i1)+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}\delta (\sigma _i+1)$$
(17)
for any finite temperature $`T`$. Notice that in the corresponding pure states $`M^2=1`$ which implies $`\chi _{\text{eq}}=0`$ and $`P_{\text{eq}}(q)=\delta (q1)`$. Furthermore, with $`J=\mathrm{}`$ thermal fluctuations within domains are suppressed and dynamics is reduced to interface diffusion. With the initial condition (15) we have the diffusion of the single interface and with the initial condition (16) the diffusion-annihilation process of the set of interfaces seeded by the initial condition. Characteristic lengths of the process are in the first case the root mean square displacement (RMSD) $`R(t)`$ of the single interface and in the second case the average distance between interfaces (or average domain size) $`L(t)`$. Furthermore, since the typical size of the potential barrier that a walker must overcome after traveling a distance $`l`$ is $`l^{1/2}h_0`$, there remains defined another characteristic length

$$L_g=\left(\frac{T}{h_0}\right)^2$$
(18)
as the distance over which potential barriers are of the order of magnitude of thermal energy. This length is important because separates the distances smaller than $`L_g`$, over which diffusion takes place as in the pure system with $`R(t)`$ or $`L(t)t^{1/2}`$, from the distances larger than $`L_g`$, over which diffusion is dominated by the random potential and it is of the Sinai type with $`R(t)`$ or $`L(t)(\mathrm{log}t)^2`$. Clearly, the limit of the pure system corresponds to $`L_g=\mathrm{}`$.

Considering different temperatures $`T`$ in the presence of random fields of different strength $`h_0`$, we have let the system evolve with initial conditions (15) and (16). One time unit is defined equal to one flip attempt per spin, on the average (spins are updated in random order). We use Metropolis transition rates, that is the probability to flip the spin is $`p_{\text{flip}}=\mathrm{min}(1,\mathrm{exp}(\frac{1}{T}\mathrm{\Delta }))`$. In the case of initial condition (15), we have found that the RMSD of the single interface depends on $`T`$ and $`h_0`$ through $`L_g`$ satisfying (Fig. 1) the scaling relation

$$R(t,L_g)=L_g\left(\frac{t}{L_g^2}\right)$$
(19)
with

$$(x)\{\begin{array}{cc}x^{\frac{1}{2}}\hfill & \text{for }x1\hfill \\ (\mathrm{log}x)^2\hfill & \text{for }x1\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
which displays the crossover from the pure regime to the Sinai regime. A completely analogous behavior is obtained in the second case for the typical domain size $`L(t)`$, measured as the inverse density of interfaces $`\rho _I^1(t)`$. We find (Fig. 2)

$$L(t,L_g)=L_g\left(\frac{t}{L_g^2}\right)$$
(21)
where the scaling function $`(x)`$ obeys the same limiting behaviors as in (20).

Next, let us consider the autocorrelation function $`G(t,t_w,L_g)=\frac{1}{N}E_h\left[_i\sigma _i(t)\sigma _i(t_w)_h\right]`$ where the angular brackets denote the average over thermal noise for a given realization of the field $`[h_i]`$. Due to the absence of thermal fluctuations within domains $`G_{\text{st}}(tt_w)0`$ and the autocorrelation function is entirely given by the aging component which satisfies (Fig. 3) the scaling relation

$$G_{\text{ag}}(t,t_w,L_g)=F(\frac{L(t)}{L(t_w)},z)$$
(22)
where $`z=\frac{L(t_w)}{L_g}`$. The shape of the scaling function $`F(x,z)`$ is known in the limits of the pure system $`(z=0)`$ and of the Sinai regime $`(z=\mathrm{})`$. In the first case from (21) follows $`x=\sqrt{\frac{t}{t_w}}`$ and from the exact solution of the Glauber dynamics for the Ising chain

$$F(x,z=0)=\frac{2}{\pi }\mathrm{arcsin}\left(\frac{2}{1+x^2}\right).$$
(23)
The second case is obtained taking $`t_w`$ so large that $`\mathrm{ln}L_g`$ can be neglected with respect to $`\mathrm{ln}t_w`$. This yields $`x=\left(\frac{\mathrm{ln}t}{\mathrm{ln}t_w}\right)^2`$ and

$$F(x,z=\mathrm{})=\frac{4}{3\sqrt{x}}\frac{1}{3x}.$$
(24)
In the intermediate cases with finite values of $`z`$ one expects

$$F(x,z)=\{\begin{array}{cc}F(x,0)\hfill & \text{, for }x11/z\hfill \\ F(x,\mathrm{})\hfill & \text{, for }x11/z\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
where the condition on $`x`$ can be rewritten more transparently as $`L(t)L(t_w)L_g`$ or $`L(t)L(t_w)L_g`$. While our data in Fig. 3 show clearly that (25) is obeyed for $`x11/z`$, the check of the crossover to the Sinai regime requires simulation times too long for what we can achieve. In any case, the behavior of the data under variation of $`z`$ in Fig. 3 shows clearly the onset of the crossover. Notice that (25) means that even if the shortest time $`t_w`$ is chosen inside the Sinai regime, namely after the potential has developed a rough landscape, for displacements up to $`L_g`$ in the bottom of the potential valleys interface diffusion takes place as in the pure system.

Finally, let us consider the behavior of the staggered magnetization

$$M(t,L_g)=\frac{T}{Nh_0^2}E_h\left[\underset{i}{}\sigma _i(t)_hh_i\right].$$
(26)
Essentially, this quantity gives the behavior of (minus) the magnetic energy per spin. At $`t=0`$ the spin and field configurations are uncorrelated and $`M(t=0,L_g)=0`$. As time evolves one expects the spins to correlate with the field producing growth in $`M(t,L_g)`$. Indeed, $`M(t,L_g)`$ displays (Fig. 4) growth in the preasymptotic regime $`L(t)L_g`$, which however is followed by an intermediate regime with a constant plateau for $`L(t)L_g`$ and then by a decrease toward zero for $`L(t)L_g`$. In the intermediate and asymptotic regimes one has

$$M(t,L_g)=\left(\frac{L(t)}{L_g}\right)$$
(27)
with $`(x)x^{1/2}`$ for $`x1`$. In order to understand how this comes about it is useful to look at $`M(t,L_g)`$ as made up by separate contributions associated to the single interfaces whose number decreases as time goes on. This is formalized by writing

$$M(t,L_g)=\rho _I(t)M_{\text{eff}}(t,L_g)$$
(28)
which defines $`M_{\text{eff}}(t,L_g)`$ as the effective staggered magnetization associated to a single interface. Using (27) then we have

$$M_{\text{eff}}(t,L_g)=L_g_{\text{eff}}\left(\frac{L(t)}{L_g}\right)$$
(29)
with (Fig. 5) the function $`_{\text{eff}}(x)`$ obeying

$$_{\text{eff}}(x)\{\begin{array}{cc}x\hfill & \text{for }x1\hfill \\ \sqrt{x}\hfill & \text{for }x1\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
The interpretation of $`M_{\text{eff}}(t,L_g)`$ as the single interface contribution to the build up of magnetization can be substantiated by measuring $`M(t,L_g)`$ in the process with the initial condition (15). In this case, defining $`M_{\text{single}}(t,L_g)=NM(t,L_g)`$, we find (Fig. 6)

$$M_{\text{single}}(t,L_g)=L_g_{\text{single}}\left(\frac{L(t)}{L_g}\right)$$
(31)
where $`_{\text{single}}(x)`$ displays the behavior (30). From this we may draw the following conclusions: i) when in the system there is only one interface, the spin-field correlation grows with time. Therefore, this is not a local effect involving only the alignment of the pair of spins at the interface with the local field. Rather, it is a large scale effect involving the optimization of the interface position with respect to the entire field configuration. ii) The magnetization growth takes place with different time laws in the preasymptotic and asymptotic regimes. iii) The total magnetization behavior of Fig. 4, when multiple interfaces are present, then is just due to the fact that in the preasymptotic regime the rate of growth of the single interface magnetization balances the rate of loss of interfaces, while in the asymptotic regime interfaces do disappear faster than the growth of the single interface contribution to the magnetization.

## III Response function

Let us now consider what happens if at the time $`t_w>0`$ an additional random field $`ϵ_i=\pm ϵ_0`$ uncorrelated with $`h_i`$ and with expectations

$$\{\begin{array}{cc}E_ϵ(ϵ_i)=0\hfill & \\ E_ϵ(ϵ_iϵ_j)=ϵ_0^2\delta _{ij}\hfill & \end{array}$$
(32)
is switched on. We take $`ϵ_0h_0`$ and we are interested in the linear response function with respect to the $`ϵ`$-perturbation given by

$$T\chi (t,t_w,L_g)=\frac{T}{Nϵ_0^2}E_hE_ϵ\left[\underset{i}{}\sigma _i(t)_{h,ϵ}ϵ_i\right]$$
(33)
where the external field $`h`$ acts from $`t=0`$ and undergoes the change from $`h`$ to $`h+ϵ`$ at $`t_w`$.

Due to the suppression of thermal fluctuations within domains enforced through $`J=\mathrm{}`$, the stationary contribution $`\chi _{\text{st}}(tt_w)`$ in (2) vanishes identically. Therefore, the above response function is entirely constituted by the aging term $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$. The interest, then, is focused on the scaling properties. As in the case of the autocorrelation function, we find (Fig. 7) that this quantity obeys the scaling form

$$T\chi (t,t_w,L_g)=\stackrel{~}{\chi }(\frac{L(t)}{L(t_w)},z).$$
(34)
For $`z=0`$ the pure system response function is recovered

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }(x,z=0)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}\sqrt{x^21}$$
(35)
which is responsible of the violation of (4) in the pure Ising chain. In fact, from the equilibrium state (17) we ought to have $`P_{\text{eq}}(q)=\delta (q1)`$ which is consistent with (4), as explained in the Introduction, if only $`\widehat{\chi }_{\text{st}}(G)`$ given by (6) enters into $`\widehat{\chi }(G)`$ and the limit $`M^21`$ is taken after differentiation. Instead, eliminating $`x`$ between (35) and (23) one finds

$$\widehat{\chi }(G,z=0)=\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\pi }\mathrm{arctan}[\sqrt{2}\mathrm{cot}(\frac{\pi }{2}G)]$$
(36)
which spoils (4).

With $`z>0`$ there is a crossover. For values of $`x`$ up to $`x11/z`$ Fig. 7 shows that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(x,z)`$ behaves as in the pure case, on the basis of the same argument used for the autocorrelation function. For larger values of $`x`$ the data show that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(x,z)`$ levels off and then decreases. This is clearly displayed also in the plot (Fig. 8) against the autocorrelation function. The mechanism responsible of this behavior is the same discussed in the previous Section for the staggered magnetization. Let us look at the effective response of a single interface $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ defined in (8). We find

$$T\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w,L_g)=L(t_w)\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\text{eff}}(\frac{L(t)}{L(t_w)},z)$$
(37)
with the scaling function displaying (Fig. 9) the behavior

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\text{eff}}(x,z)\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\text{eff}}(x,z=0)\hfill & \text{, for }x11/z\hfill \\ \sqrt{x}\hfill & \text{, for }x11/z\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\text{eff}}(x,z=0)=x\stackrel{~}{\chi }(x,z=0)`$. ¿From this follows (11) in the preasymptotic regime and (12) in the asymptotic regime, which account for the crossover of the response function in Fig. 7 in terms of the balance between the rate of growth of the single interface response and the rate of loss of interfaces. Hence, for $`z>0`$ eventually $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(x,z)`$ vanishes and in the limit $`z\mathrm{}`$ one expects

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }(x,z=\mathrm{})0.$$
(39)
Therefore, for any finite $`h_0`$ the validity of (4) is restored asymptotically.

Lastly, it remains to make sure that $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_{\text{eff}}(x,z)`$ may be identified with the response function of a single interface. This we have done by measuring the response function $`\chi _{\text{single}}(t,t_w,L_g)`$ in the process with only one interface in the initial condition and finding (Fig. 10) a behavior quite close to the one of Fig. 9.

## IV Conclusions

One of the hypothesis for the validity of (4) relating static and dynamic properties is that the large time limit of $`\chi (t,t_w)`$ reaches the equilibrium value $`\chi _{\text{eq}}`$. It is then clear from (2) that for this to be true in the phase ordering process $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ must vanish, since this is an intrinsically out of equilibrium contribution. In other words, the existence of the interfacial degrees of freedom which do not equilibrate must not play a role at the level of the response function. Indeed, $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ normally does to vanish. However, there are exceptions in special cases and the study of these is quite instructive since it allows to gain insight into the properties of $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$. One dimensional systems with a scalar order parameter and frozen bulk thermal fluctuations do make such a special case. In the $`d=1`$ pure Ising model, due to the pointlike structure of domain walls, the minimization of magnetic energy introduces a bias in the diffusion of interfaces which leads to a nonvanishing $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ through (11). Elsewhere we have analyzed how (11) ceases to hold in going from $`d=1`$ to $`d>1`$, due to the extended nature of interfaces. In that case the minimization of magnetic energy is hindered by the competing need to minimize the curvature of interfaces and $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$ asymptotically disappears. In this paper we have investigated a different mechanism altering the delicate balance (11) between the gain and loss of contributions to the response function, which does not require the passage from pointlike to extended defects. In the $`d=1`$ RFIM it is the gradual roughening of the landscape that slows down the minimization of the magnetic energy with respect to the growth law of the domain size and which eventually yields an asymptotically vanishing $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)`$. Therefore, the overall picture which comes out is that a coarsening system is always out of equilibrium in the sense that there are always interfaces around, each one producing the out of equilibrium contribution $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ to the response function, independently from dimensionality or the presence of quenched disorder. These are elements which affect the finer details, like whether $`\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ is a constant or how fast it grows. Where these properties come into play is in putting together the contributions of all the separate interfaces through $`\chi _{\text{ag}}(t,t_w)=\rho _I(t)\chi _{\text{eff}}(t,t_w)`$ which, now depending on dimensionality or quenched disorder, may then produce either a vanishing or an asymptotically persistent net result.

Finally, a comment should be made about the non commutativity of the order of the limits $`h_00`$ and $`t_w\mathrm{}`$. If the limit $`h_00`$ is taken first, the linear response function of the pure Ising model is obtained and, as discussed above, (4) is violated. Instead, if $`t_w\mathrm{}`$ is taken first one finds the asymptotic linear response function (39) of the RFIM which is consistent with (4). However, if the limit $`h_00`$ is taken next, the response function sticks to $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }(x,z=\mathrm{})`$, which is not the linear response function of the pure model.

Acknowledgments - This work has been partially supported from the European TMR Network-Fractals c.n. FMRXCT980183 and from MURST through PRIN-2000.