text:
# Fragility of the Free-Energy Landscape of a Directed Polymer in Random Media

## I Introduction

A very interesting problem of glassy systems with disorder and frustration is the possible instability of the glassy frozen states against infinitesimally weak perturbations such as an infinitesimal change of temperatures and realizations of quenched randomness. Such a perturbation does not bring the system out of the frozen phase but possibly changes the lugged landscape of the free-energy in a dramatic way. Let us call this intriguing property as fragility of the free-energy landscape. A class of phenomenological scaling theories started first in the context of spin-glass by Bray and Moore, and, Fisher and Huse BM87 ; FH88 ; FH91  generically implies that equilibrium states of systems with disorder and frustration resist against such infinitesimally weak perturbations of strength $`\delta 1`$ up to a finite crossover length scale $`L_c(\delta )`$ called overlap length but change into completely different states at larger length scales, resulting in the vanishing of the correlations between the two states. The overlap length $`L_c(\delta )`$ diverges as $`\delta 0`$ but remains finite for any non-zero $`\delta `$. Such an anomalous response is called as chaos referring to the feature that the distance between the perturbed and unperturbed systems becomes infinitely large in phase space even by infinitesimally weak perturbation as the system size $`L`$ becomes macroscopically large $`L/L_c(\delta )\mathrm{}`$ BM87 . Unfortunately, the validity of the prediction has not been proven explicitly by theoretical studies except for some Migdal Kadanoff type real space renormalization-group (MKRG) studies BB87 ; NH93 . Especially, the issue of temperature-chaos, i. e. the sensitivity of glassy phases with respect to a small change of temperature, has been of great interest because of its potential relevance for the rejuvenation (chaos) effects found in temperature-shift and temperature-cycling experiments JVHBN ; sg-experiment-review ; JYN02 .

The majority of the previous theoretical and numerical studies concerning the problem of the fragility of glassy phases has been done on Edwards-Anderson (EA) spin-glass models, which has been considered as prototypical model for glassy systems. While a rich amount of numerical evidences for the anomalous response to non-thermal perturbations has been accumulated BM87 ; R94 ; AFF95 ; RSBDJ96 ; N97 , the intriguing problem of temperature-chaos remains very controversial. For the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) mean-field spin-glass model, which is the EA model embedded in infinite dimensional space. It is realized that saddle point solutions both with and without temperature-chaos Sompolinski ; Kon89 ; KV93 ; FN95 ; R01  exist and apparently new theoretical ideas are needed. On the other hand, numerical studies report conflicting results R94 ; AFF95 ; N97 ; HK97 ; BM00 ; MPP00 ; BM02 .

Recently we developed an analytical scheme to study the fragility of the free-energy landscape of randomly frustrated systems against various kind of perturbations SY . Especially we proposed to prove the onset of chaos in terms of statistical decoupling of a set of replicated partition functions, and we applied the method to the directed polymer in random media (DPRM). The DPRM HZ95  is a simple model compared to spin-glass models. In spite of this, it is believed to possess many of the subtle properties of glassy systems, thus, it deserves to be called as “baby spin-glass”M90 . Indeed, the anomalous response of DPRM towards various kinds of weak perturbations has already been reported by many numerical studies M90 ; Z87 ; FV88 ; S91 ; HH93  including a signature of temperature-chaos FH91 . DPRM belongs to the wide class of elastic manifolds in random media MP91 ; BF93 ; BBM ; GD ; PGD00  which encompasses a variety of physical systems of much interest such as the domain walls of ferromagnets HH85 ; MDW  with weak bond randomness and the flux lines in type-II superconductors with randomly distributed point like pinning centers blatt ; bolle , CDW and vortex lattice systems with weak random-periodic pinnings FL78 ; Gru88 ; GD .

The scope of this paper is to present a unified study on the fragility of the free-energy landscape of DPRM with respect to various weak perturbations using the replica Bethe ansatz approach outlined in SY , mapping to a modified Sinai model and numerically exact transfer matrix calculations. Our main results are the following. We find that infinitesimally weak perturbations amount to replica symmetry breaking terms in the effective action which lead to the statistical decoupling of two sets of replicas. The outcome can be naturally understood as a manifestation of spontaneous replica symmetry breaking following the definition of Parisi and Virasoro PV89 . Interestingly enough, the replica approach turns out to give results quite consistent with the phenomenological scaling approach FH91 ; M90 ; Z87 ; FV88 ; S91 ; HH93  and predict the same overlap length $`L_c(\delta )`$. Within the replica approach, apparently different perturbations can be naturally classified into a few universality classes. Concerning the well known correspondence between the effective free-energy landscape of DPRM and the Sinai model, the statistical decoupling of replicas (chaos) naturally suggests the emergence of statistically independent Sinai valleys for different subsets of replicas. To examine the anticipated universal aspects of the anomalous response, we present and discuss the outcome of a detailed numerical analysis using transfer matrix methods.

The plan of the paper is the following. In the next sections we propose a general framework to define and study the fragility of the free-energy landscape of randomly frustrated systems. In section III, we define the DPRM model. In section IV, we review and summarize the previous scaling arguments. In section V we present details of the replica Bethe ansatz approach outlined in SY . Then, in section VII, we present the outcome of an exhaustive numerical analysis using the transfer matrix method. Finally, we summarize our results in section VIII.

## II Statistical Decoupling of Real Replicas

In this section we discuss a general strategy to study the sensitivity of the free-energy landscape of a generic class of systems. The free-energy $`F`$ of a random system is a random quantity with certain mean and variance. Let us denote the deviation of the free-energy of a given sample from the mean as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F=F\overline{F}.$$
(1)
Here and hereafter $`\overline{(\mathrm{})}`$ denotes the average over different realizations of randomness.

Now let us consider two systems say A and B. Initially they are prepared as two identical copies with the same randomness, temperature and other parameters. Such systems are called as real replicas. We are interested in how the statistical correlation between A and B changes by introducing a perturbation of strength $`\delta `$. Then it is useful to define a disorder-averaged correlation function,

$$C_F(L,\delta )=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F_A(L)\mathrm{\Delta }F_B(L)}}{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F_A^2(L)}}\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F_B^2(L)}}}$$
(2)
If the correlation function vanishes at large length scales

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}C_F(L,\delta )0$$
(3)
it implies the free-energy landscape of A and B decorrelates completely. If the statistical decoupling between A and B happens even with arbitrarily weak perturbation $`\delta 1`$, we say that there is chaos.

Now let us consider an equivalent definition of chaos which is more suited for analytical approaches based on the replica method. Let us suppose that each of the systems A and B are replicated further into $`n`$ replicas and consider the disorder-averaged partition function of the total system $`Z_{A+B}^n(L)`$. As noticed by Kardar K87 , if an analytical continuation for $`n0`$ is possible, the disorder average of such a partition function can be identified as the generator of cumulant correlation functions of sample-to-sample fluctuations of free-energies K96 . Thus the complete knowledge of the disorder average of the replicated partition function allows one to obtain the distribution function of sample-to-sample fluctuation of the free-energy GB . In our present context, the disorder-averaged partition function $`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(L)}`$ generates cumulant correlation functions of the total free-energy as the following,

$`\underset{n0}{lim}\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`n\overline{\mathrm{ln}Z_{A+B}(L)}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{2}}\overline{[\mathrm{ln}Z_{A+B}(L)]_c^2}+\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^p}{p!}}\overline{[\mathrm{ln}Z_{A+B}(L)]_c^p}+\mathrm{}`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`n\overline{[\beta _AF_A(L)\beta _BF_B(L)]}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{2}}\overline{[\beta _AF_A(L)\beta _BF_B(L)]_c^2}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \frac{n^p}{p!}}\overline{[\beta _AF_A\beta _BF_B]_c^p}+\mathrm{}`$
where $`[\mathrm{}]_c^p`$ stands for $`p`$-th cumulant correlation functions of the total free-energies $`\beta _AF_A\beta _BF_B`$ with $`F_A(L)`$ and $`F_B(L)`$ being free-energies of subsystems A and B respectively and $`\beta _A`$ and $`\beta _B`$ being inverse temperatures of A and B respectively.

Obviously, the decorrelation of the free-energy fluctuations between A and B is equivalent to the factorization of the replicated partition function,

$$\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{n0}{lim}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(L,\delta )}=\overline{Z_A^n(L)}\times \overline{Z_B^n(L)}$$
(5)
Note that if the latter result holds, automatically(3) holds too. An important remark is that the order in which limits are taken is crucial to obtain sensible results: the limit $`n0`$ must be taken before than the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$ and finally the limit $`\delta 0`$ must be taken. In what follows, we will use (5) as our definition of chaos in the replica approach. We have to stress, though, that this definition is general and holds for generic random systems.

The above definition of chaos implies that it can be regarded as a spontaneous symmetry breaking phenomenon. If the perturbation is absent, A and B are equivalent and one expects the exchange symmetry $`AB`$ to be present. One also expects to have permutation symmetry among the replicas associated to each group A or B. Such an invariance under permutations is usually called in short as replica symmetry. However, in general, it turns out that the disorder-averaged replicated partition function of the $`2\times n`$ replicas $`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}`$ without any perturbation has an even higher symmetry: it is invariant under any permutation among the $`2\times n`$ replicas. Now, if (5) holds, this higher symmetry is reduced: after having introduced a perturbation the permutation symmetry remains at most within each subset associated with A and B. Thus in order the this phenomena happens, the perturbation should show up in the replicated partition function as a symmetry breaking term which tries to break the full permutation symmetry. Now, the definition (5) tells us that this symmetry breaking happens even with an arbitrary weak perturbation. Therefore chaos defined as (5) is a spontaneous replica symmetry breaking phenomenon. We note that such a definition of replica symmetry breaking was introduced under the name explicit replica symmetry first by Parisi and Virasoro PV89  who tried to give a sound thermodynamic definition for the replica symmetry breaking phenomena known in the saddle point solutions of mean-field models P80 ; MFT  of a class of glassy systems.

## III Model

We study DPRM in $`1+1`$ dimensions which is described by the following Hamiltonian in the continuous limit,

$$H_0[V,h,\varphi ]=_0^L𝑑z\left[\frac{\kappa }{2}\left(\frac{d\varphi (z)}{dz}\right)^2+V_0(\varphi (z),z)\right].$$
(6)
The scalar field $`\varphi `$ represents the displacement of the elastic object at point $`z`$ in a 1-dimensional internal space of size $`L`$. We assume that the field $`\varphi `$ is a single-valued function of $`z`$ which means that oriented objects with no overhangs are considered. In the following, we assume that one end of the string is fixed as $`\varphi (0)=0`$ while the other end $`\varphi (L)`$ is allowed to move freely. The 1st term in the Hamiltonian is the elastic energy, $`\kappa `$ being the elastic constant. The random pinning media is modeled by the quenched random potential $`V_0(\varphi ,z)`$ with zero mean and short-ranged spatial correlation,

$$\overline{V_0(\varphi ,z)}=0\overline{V_0(\varphi ,z)V_0(\varphi ^{},z^{})}=2D\delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})\delta (zz^{})$$
(7)
Many exact properties of this $`1+1`$ dimensional model are known HZ95 . It is in the frozen phase at all finite temperatures in the sense that its scaling properties are always governed by the $`T=0`$ glassy fixed point.

We implement the basic strategy explained in the previous section as the following. First, we start with a system of two real replicas, say A and B, whose configurations $`\varphi _A(z)`$ and $`\varphi _B(z)`$ are subjected to exactly the same random potential and temperature. Second, we apply small perturbations to them. In the present paper we consider 5 different kinds of perturbations:

* Tilt field M90 : A and B replicas are subjected to a tilting field of opposite sign $`h\varphi _A(L)+h\varphi _B(L)`$ with $`h1`$.
* Explicit short-ranged repulsive coupling P90 ; M90 : A and B replicas are subjected to explicit repulsive short-ranged interaction $`ϵ_0^L𝑑z\delta (\varphi _A(z)\varphi _B(z))`$ with $`0<ϵ1`$.
* Decorrelation of random potential Z87 ; FV88 : the random potential of B is made from that of A as $`V_B=(V_A+\delta V^{})/\sqrt{1+\delta ^2}`$ where $`|\delta |1`$ and $`V^{}`$ follows the same Gaussian distribution as $`V`$. Then $`\overline{V_G(\varphi ,z)}=0`$ and $`\overline{V_G\varphi ,z)V_G^{}(\varphi ^{},z^{})}=2D_{GG^{}}\delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})\delta (zz^{})`$ with $`D_{AA}=D_{BB}=D`$ and $`D_{AB}=D/\sqrt{1+\delta ^2}<D`$.
* Random Tilt Field: A and B are subjected to statistically independent weak random tilt field.
* Temperature difference FH91 : slightly different temperatures $`T_A=T+\delta T`$ $`T_B=T\delta T`$ for A and B respectively with $`\delta T/T1`$

## IV Droplet Scaling Approach

We first review and discuss the scaling approach picture FH91 ; M90 ; Z87 ; FV88 ; S91 ; HH93  for the problem of the anomalous response. Let us consider a simple-minded picture consisting in the deepest valley corresponding to the ground state configuration and many branched valleys of low (free-)energy excitations which for given longitudinal size $`L`$ differ from the ’ground state’ over a transverse size $`u_0(L/L_0)^\zeta `$, $`\zeta `$ being the so called roughness exponent. Note that we have introduced a characteristic longitudinal length $`L_0`$, which should be understood as the Larkin length Larkin  beyond which pinning becomes important, as well as its associated transverse length scale $`u_0`$. The free-energy gap of these excited states with respect to the ’ground state’ is expected to scale typically as,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_L^{\mathrm{typ}}=U_0(L/L_0)^\theta .$$
(8)
Here $`U_0`$ is the energy scale associated with the Larkin length and $`\theta `$ is the stiffness exponent which is related to the roughness exponent $`\zeta `$ by the exact scaling relation,

$$\theta =2\zeta 1.$$
(9)
In a $`1+1`$ dimensional system these exponents are believed to be exactly $`\theta =1/3`$ and $`\zeta =2/3`$ HH85 ; K87 ; HZ95 . The probability distribution function of the free-energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }F_L`$ is expected to have a natural scaling form,

$$\rho _L(\mathrm{\Delta }F_L)d(\mathrm{\Delta }F_L)=\stackrel{~}{\rho }\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }F_L}{U_0(L/L_0)^\theta }\right)\frac{d(\mathrm{\Delta }F_L)}{U_0(L/L_0)^\theta },$$
(10)
with non-vanishing amplitude at the origin,

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }(0)>0,$$
(11)
which allows rare, gap-less excited states FH91 ; M90 .

Let us now consider a generic perturbation which triggers an excitation from the ’ground state’ with a free-energy gain of order,

$$\delta U\left(\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^\alpha ,$$
(12)
in the infinitesimally weak perturbation limit,

$$\delta U/U_00.$$
(13)
In the following we consider perturbations such that $`\alpha >\theta `$. Under the influence of such a perturbation, the system in the deepest valley may jump into other valleys with free-energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ if the possible gain of free-energy due to perturbation (12) becomes larger than the original free-energy gap itself. The probability of such an event is estimated as,

$$p_{\mathrm{jump}}(L,\delta U)=_0^{\delta U(L/L_0)^\alpha }\rho _L\left(\mathrm{\Delta }F_L\right)𝑑\mathrm{\Delta }F\left(\frac{L}{L_c(\delta U)}\right)^{\alpha \theta },$$
(14)
with a characteristic length scale called overlap length,

$$L_c(\delta U)L_0\left(\frac{\delta U}{U_0}\right)^{1/(\alpha \theta )}\text{as}\delta U/U_00.$$
(15)
Let us also define a characteristic transverse length scale which is conjugate to $`L_c(\delta U)`$,

$$u_c(\delta U)=u_0\left(\frac{L_c(\delta U)}{L_0}\right)^\zeta .$$
(16)
It is important to note that the above expressions make sense only for short enough length scales $`LL_c(\delta U)`$. In this regime the effect of the jumps on physical quantities can be analyzed in a perturbative way because the probability of a jump is small enough. Let us call this regime weakly perturbed regime. However, in strongly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta U)`$, perturbative treatments will fail because jump events will happen with probability one. The latter implies that after having applied the perturbation the free-energy landscape is drastically different from the original on lengthscales larger than the overlap length. The overlap length (15) diverges as $`\delta U/U_00`$ with exponent $`1/(\alpha \theta )`$ which is sometimes called as chaos exponent 111In the spin-glass problems the chaos exponent is denoted as $`\zeta `$. Here we do not use the convention because it is usually used for the roughness exponent $`\zeta `$. but remains finite for arbitrary small strength of perturbation $`\delta `$.

### IV.1 Uniform Tilt Field

We first consider the application of a uniform tilt field $`h`$ to the end-point of the real replica B at $`z=L`$ by which the statistical rotational symmetry is violated. In the presence of the tilt field the Hamiltonian becomes,

$$H_{A+B}=H_0[V_0,\varphi _A]+H_0[V_0,\varphi _B]h_{\mathrm{uni}}_0^L𝑑z\frac{d\varphi _B(z)}{dz}$$
(17)
The unperturbed Hamiltonian $`H_0`$ is given in (6). If the string makes a jump responding to the uniform tilt field over a distance of order $`u_0(L/L_0)^\zeta `$ into the next valley, it obtains an energy gain of order $`h_{\mathrm{uni}}u_0(L/L_0)^\zeta `$. Thus the unit for the gain in energy (12) reads as $`\delta U=h_{\mathrm{uni}}u_0`$ with characteristic exponent $`\alpha =\zeta =2/3`$. Therefore we find the overlap length (15) to be,

$$L_c(h_{\mathrm{uni}})L_0\left(\frac{h_{\mathrm{uni}}u_0}{U_0}\right)^3$$
(18)
This result was previously obtained by Mézard in M90  by using essentially the same argument and supporting his result by a numerical transfer matrix calculation.

### IV.2 Explicit Repulsive Coupling

The other perturbations that we consider do not break the statistical rotational symmetry. First we consider the case of having a short-ranged repulsive coupling between the two real replicas by which the total Hamiltonian becomes,

$$H_{A+B}=H_0[V_0,\varphi _A]+H_0[V_0,\varphi _B]+ϵ_0^L𝑑z\delta (\varphi _A(z)\varphi _B(z))$$
(19)
with $`ϵ>0`$.

This type of perturbation was first considered by Parisi and Virasoro PV89  in the context of spin-glass models in order to give a precise definition of spontaneous replica symmetry breaking. It explicitly breaks the RS noted in section I. It was also used in the DPRM problem by Parisi in P90  and was further examined by Mézard using the numerical transfer matrix method M90 .
If the two replicas jump into different valleys avoiding to touch with each other, the energy is reduced by an amount of order $`ϵ(L/L_0)`$. Thus we read off $`\alpha =1`$ and $`\delta U=ϵ`$ so that the overlap length (15) becomes,

$$L_c(ϵ)L_0\left(\frac{ϵ}{U_0}\right)^{3/2}$$
(20)
Again this length scale agrees with the result obtained by Mézard for the same quantity in M90 .

### IV.3 Potential Change, Random Tilt Field and Temperature Change

Now we introduce three other kinds of perturbations which do not break rotational symmetry. As we explain in section V, this class of perturbations also breaks the RS noted in section I. However, the strength of perturbation is sub-extensive $`L^{1/2}`$ $`(\alpha =1/2)`$ and much weaker than in the case of explicit repulsive coupling which is extensive $`L`$ $`(\alpha =1)`$.

#### IV.3.1 Potential Change

We consider three different perturbations of $`\alpha =1/2`$. The first one is to introduce a small difference between the realizations of the pinning potential for A and B Z87 ; FV88 ; S91 ; HH93 . Suppose that A has a certain realization of the pinning potential $`V_0`$. Then we can construct the potential for B as the sum of $`V_0`$ and a new statistically independent random number $`V_1`$. Then the total Hamiltonian becomes,

$$H_{A+B}=H_0[V_0,\varphi _A]+H_0[(V_0+\delta V_1)/\sqrt{1+\delta ^2},\varphi _B].$$
(21)
Here $`\delta `$ is the strength of the perturbation and $`V_1`$ has the same statistical properties as $`V_0`$ given in (7). Namely it has zero mean and short-ranged correlations,

$$\overline{V_1(\varphi ,z)V_1(\varphi ^{},z)}=2D\delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})\delta (zz^{}).\overline{V_0(\varphi ,z)V_1(\varphi ^{},z^{})}=0.$$
(22)
Note that the pinning potential for replica B is normalized by the factor $`1/\sqrt{1+\delta ^2}`$, so that it has the same amplitude as A replica.

The characteristic fluctuation of the extra energy gain along a configuration due to the random variation of the potential scales typically as $`\delta U_0\sqrt{L/L_0}`$ since it gives contributions with random signs. Thus we read off $`\alpha =1/2`$, $`\delta U=\delta U_0`$ and the the overlap length (15) becomes,

$$L_c(\delta )L_0\delta ^6$$
(23)
This length scale was found by Feigel’man and V. M. Vinokur by essentially the same argument FV88 . Previous numerical calculations Z87 ; HH93  appear consistent with it but the anticipated crossover phenomena had remained to be clarified.

#### IV.3.2 Random Tilt Field

Similarly, we consider the application of a random tilt field to the end-point of B,

$$H_{A+B}=H_0[V_0,0,\varphi _A]+H_0[V_0,0,\varphi _B]\delta _0^L𝑑zh(z)\frac{d\varphi _B(z)}{dz}$$
(24)
Here $`\delta `$ is the strength of the perturbation and $`h(z)`$ is a Gaussian random number with zero mean and short-ranged correlations,

$$\overline{h(z)}=0\overline{h(z)h(z^{})}=2\delta (\varphi \varphi ^{})\delta (zz^{}).$$
(25)
Within the lattice model we study numerically, the energetic gain of energy typically scales again as $`\delta U_0\sqrt{L/L_0}`$. Thus we find $`\alpha =1/2`$ and $`\delta U=\delta U_0`$ which gives the overlap length,

$$L_c(\delta )L_0\delta ^6$$
(26)
#### IV.3.3 Temperature Change

All perturbations discussed so far are non-thermal perturbations. Finally we consider the introduction of a slight temperature difference between the two real replicas A and B,

$`T_A`$ $`=`$ $`T+\delta T_A`$
$`T_B`$ $`=`$ $`T+\delta T_B`$ (27)
where $`\delta T_A\delta T_B`$. Although this perturbation appears to be rather different from the two other cases above, it is also expected to give $`\alpha =1/2`$ based on the following observation.

Fisher and HuseFH91  conjectured that valley-to-valley fluctuations of the energy and the entropy are just that of a sum of random variables put on a string of length $`L`$. Thus the amplitude of valley-to-valley fluctuation scales as,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S(L)`$ $``$ $`k_\mathrm{B}(L/L_0)^{1/2}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }E(L)`$ $``$ $`U_0(L/L_0)^{1/2}`$ (28)
However, it is argued that the free-energy is optimized so that these wild fluctuations cancel with each other as much as possible in such a way that valley-to-valley fluctuations of the free-energy is much smaller,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F(L)=U_0(L/L_0)^\theta \text{with}\theta <1/2.$$
(29)
In other words, there is a strong negative correlation between the fluctuations of entropy and energy such that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }S/k_\mathrm{B})(\delta E/U_0)(L/L_0)<0$$
(30)
due to the thermodynamic relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }F=\mathrm{\Delta }Ek_\mathrm{B}T\mathrm{\Delta }S`$. Note that a similar argument lies at the heart of the droplet theory for spin-glasses which suggests temperature-chaos BM87 ; FH88 . Actually the exponent for the free-energy fluctuations is believed to be exactly $`\theta =1/3`$ which is definitely smaller than $`1/2`$. Furthermore, the stronger fluctuation of entropy and energy (28) was confirmed numerically by a transfer-matrix calculation while the smaller fluctuation of free-energy with $`\theta =1/3`$ was also observed simultaneously FH91 note-energy-entropy . Then under a slight temperature-difference between the two replicas A and B, it is possible that one of the replicas jumps into a different valley taking advantage of the large gain in entropy. Such a gain should typically scale as $`k_\mathrm{B}|\delta T_A\delta T_B|(L/L_0)^{1/2}`$ and therefore $`\alpha =1/2`$ and $`\delta U=k_\mathrm{B}|\delta T_A\delta T_B|`$. From (15), one then finds the overlap length as,

$$L_c(\delta T)\left(\frac{k_\mathrm{B}|\delta T|}{U_0}\right)^6$$
(31)
with $`\delta T=\delta T_A\delta T_B`$. This length scale was found by Fisher and Huse in FH91 . Indeed their transfer matrix calculation presented in FH91  suggests the existence of crossover phenomena. However, details of the scaling properties and comparison with the case of the perturbation on potential have remained to be explored. So we try to complete the investigation in section VII.

As we summarized above, what is crucial is the role of entropy. In the so called Larkin model Larkin , in which the effect of pinning is modeled by quenched random forces with short ranged correlations, entropy plays very little role and free-energy is dominated by energy so that there is no temperature-chaos (see FLN ).

### IV.4 Moments of transverse jump distances

In order to characterize the jump events triggered by the perturbations, it is useful to introduce appropriate correlation functions. First, let us introduce the disorder average of the q-th moment of the transverse distance between the end points of the two real replicas,

$$B_q(L,\delta U)=\overline{(\mathrm{\Phi }_A(L)\mathrm{\Phi }_B(L))^q}.$$
(32)
It was introduced and studied numerically by Zhang in Z87  and continued more in HH93  for the case of perturbation on the random potential. The following is an extension of the argument by Feigel’man and V. M. Vinokur described in FV88 .

#### IV.4.1 Weakly Perturbed Regime

In the weakly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta U)`$, a jump event happens with a probability smaller than $`1`$ as given in (14). By a single event, a transverse displacement of order $`u_0(L/L_0)^\zeta `$ will take place. Thus we expect

$$B_q(L,\delta U)\left[u_0\left(\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^\zeta \right]^qp_{\mathrm{jump}}(L,\delta U)u_c(\delta U)^q\left(\frac{L}{L_c(\delta U)}\right)^{(q2)\zeta +\alpha +1}LL_c(\delta U),$$
(33)
where in the last step we have used the scaling relation (9).

#### IV.4.2 Strongly Perturbed Regime

In the strongly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta U)`$, the jump events with longitudinal size $`L_c(\delta U)`$ and transverse size $`u_c(\delta U)`$ will take place with probability one. Let us first consider the behavior of the 1st moment $`B_1(L,\delta U)`$ in this regime.

In the strongly perturbed regime, the two replicas A and B are subjected to very different free-energy landscapes. In such a situation, we expect that the two replicas A and B will make excursions independently. Thus we expect a simple scaling form,

$$B_1(L,\delta U)=u_c(\delta U)\left(\frac{L}{L_c(\delta U)}\right)^\zeta LL_c(\delta U).$$
(34)
However, the situation is slightly different in the case of uniform tilt field considered in section IV.1. Because the uniform tilt field continues to increase the separation between A and B systematically as $`L\mathrm{}`$. After making a transverse jump of order $`u_0(L/L_0)^\zeta `$ another jump into a further valley in the direction of the field can take place if the strength of the field $`h`$ is increased further. The latter happens when the new increment of the “Zeeman energy” $`\delta hu_0(L/L_0)^\zeta `$ due to another increment of the field $`\delta h`$ becomes again comparable to the typical free-energy gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }F^{\mathrm{typ}}(L)`$ given in (8),

$$\delta hu_0(L/L_0)^\zeta \mathrm{\Delta }F^{\mathrm{typ}}(L).$$
(35)
The number of times that such a sequence of jumps happens by increasing the field from $`0`$ to $`h`$ will be typically $`h/\delta h`$. Each jump will have a typical transverse size of order $`u_0(L/L_0)^\zeta `$. Thus the 1st moment grows as,

$$B_1(L,hu_0)=u_0\left(\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^\zeta \frac{h}{\delta h}=u_c(hu_0)\left(\frac{L}{L_c(hu_0)}\right)LL_c(hu_0)$$
(36)
In the last equation, we used the scaling relation (9). Note that the first moment $`(q=1)`$ grows linearly with $`L`$ not only in the strongly perturbed regime but also in the weakly perturbed regime as one can see using $`\alpha =\zeta `$ in (33). Actually the linear growth of the 1st moment can be proved rigorously using the statistical rotational (tilt) symmetry of the system SVBO ; M90 . This is a rather special property of the 1st moment. All other moments are sensitive to the crossover from weak to strong perturbation regimes.

Let us now consider higher moments $`q>1`$. Since jump events are typical in the strongly perturbed regime, we generically expect a simple relation between different moments,

$$B_q(L,\delta U)=u_c^q(\delta U)\left(\frac{B_1(L,\delta U)}{u_c(\delta U)}\right)^qLL_c(\delta U).$$
(37)
where note that the natural unit for the q-th moment is now $`u_c^q(\delta U)`$. Note that in the weakly perturbed regime such a simple relation between different moments does not hold because of the rareness of the jump events. The 1st moment obeys a scaling law such that $`B_1(L,\delta U)/u_c(\delta U)`$ is a function of $`L/L_c(\delta U)`$ also in the strongly perturbed regime as we mentioned above. This implies that the higher moments $`(q>1)`$ obey a scaling law such that $`B_q(L,\delta U)/u_c^q(\delta U)`$ becomes a function of $`L/L_c(\delta U)(1)`$ in the strongly perturbed regime.

#### IV.4.3 Summary

To summarize, we expect a generic scaling form for the behavior of the q-th moment including both weakly and strongly perturbed regimes as,

$$B_q(L,\delta U)=u_c^q(\delta U)\stackrel{~}{B}_q\left(\frac{L}{L_c(\delta U)}\right).$$
(38)
Here the scaling function presents the asymptotic forms in weakly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta U)`$ and strongly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta U)`$ which we discussed above.

### IV.5 Overlap function

Another useful quantity to probe the jump events is the overlap function defined as P90 ; M90 ,

$$q(L,\delta U)=\frac{1}{L}_0^L𝑑z\delta (x_0(z)x_{\delta U}(z)).$$
(39)
We expect it to scale as,

$$q(L,\mathrm{\Delta }U)=\stackrel{~}{q}\left(\frac{L}{L_c(\delta U)}\right).$$
(40)
Note that $`1q`$ is essentially the probability that the string jumps to a different valley. Thus in the weakly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta U)`$, we expect that it behaves as,

$$1q(L,\delta U)p^{\mathrm{jump}}(L,\delta U)\left(\frac{L}{L_c(\delta U}\right)^{\alpha \theta }.$$
(41)
In the strongly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta U)`$, we expect that $`q`$ (i. e. the probability of staying in the same valley) decays faster down to $`0`$ as $`L/L_c(\delta )\mathrm{}`$ because the free-energy landscapes of the two replicas are increasingly different there.

### IV.6 Correlation of the free-energy fluctuation

In order to probe the difference of free-energy landscapes between the perturbed and unperturbed systems, we study the correlation function (2) of the sample-to-sample fluctuations of the free-energy between the two systems which reads as,

$$C_F(L,\delta U)=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F(L,0)\mathrm{\Delta }F(L,\delta U)}}{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F^2(L,0)}}\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F^2(L,\delta U)}}}.$$
(42)
here $`\mathrm{\Delta }F(L,0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }F(L,\delta U)`$ are deviations from the mean free-energy of the unperturbed and perturbed systems. A similar correlation function was studied numerically for the case of perturbation of temperature-shift in FH91 . We expect it to scale as,

$$C_F(L,\mathrm{\Delta }U)=\stackrel{~}{C}_F\left(\frac{L}{L_c(\delta U)}\right),$$
(43)
and decay down to $`0`$ as $`L\mathrm{}`$.

A possible functional form of the correlation function in the weakly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta )`$ can be guessed by a simple argument proposed by Bray and Moore BM87  for the equivalent problem in a spin-glass model. First, we are considering perturbations such that perturbed and unperturbed system have the same statistical properties. Thus we must have,

$$\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }^2F(L,\delta U)}}=\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }^2F(L,0)}}U_0\left(\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^\theta .$$
(44)
Suppose that we introduce a perturbation which scales as $`\delta U(L/L_0)^\alpha `$ as given in (12). Then the fluctuations of the free-energy of the perturbed system have two contributions: the original fluctuation $`\mathrm{\Delta }F(L,0)`$ plus the change due to the perturbation,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F(L,\delta U)=\frac{1}{𝒩}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }F(L,0)+\delta U\left(\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^\alpha \right)$$
(45)
Here $`𝒩`$ is a normalization factor which assures that the statistics of the perturbed and unperturbed systems remain the same as in(44). It is assumed that the two terms between brackets in expression 45 are uncorrelated. When performing the average over the disorder, the cross-terms due to the two terms in (45) cancel out to give the following scaling function for the correlation function,

$$C_F(L,\mathrm{\Delta }U)\frac{1}{𝒩}\left[1+\left(\frac{\delta U}{U_0}\frac{L}{L_0}\right)^{2(\alpha \theta )}\right]^{1/2}.$$
(46)
For strongly perturbed regime $`LL_c(\delta )`$, the correlation function may decay faster.

## V Replica Bethe Ansatz Approach

Now let us take the replica approach introduced in section II to study chaos. We start from the partition function of $`2\times n`$ replicas: A and B and their $`n`$ copies. It can be expressed by a path integral over all possible configurations of $`2\times n`$ replicas labeled by two indices $`G=A,B`$ and $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n`$,

$`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(L)}={\displaystyle \underset{G=A,B}{}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}𝒟\varphi _{G,\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left(S_{A+B}[\varphi _{G,\alpha }]\right)}.`$ (47)
where we have introduced the dimension-less effective action,

$`S_{A+B}[\varphi _{G,\alpha }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^L}𝑑z\left[{\displaystyle \underset{G,\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{G,\alpha }(z)}{dz}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{G,G^{},\alpha ,\beta }{}}\delta (\varphi _{G,\alpha }(z)\varphi _{G^{},\beta }(z))\right]`$ (48)
To obtain the last equation we have used (7). Here one end of each replica is fixed as $`\varphi _{G,\alpha }(0)=0`$ while the other end $`\varphi _{G,\alpha }(L)`$ is allowed to move freely as we noted above.

The effective action (48) has several important symmetries. First, it has a symmetry under global rotation in the $`(z,\varphi )`$ plane. Second, it is symmetric under all possible permutations among the $`2\times n`$ replicas. Let us call the latter as ’RS’ (replica symmetric) for simplicity. As we explained in section II our primary interest is how the RS is broken by infinitesimally weak perturbations.

Now we focus on the study of the disorder averaged partition function $`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(L)}`$. To this respect we will use the well known mapping to an $`n`$-body imaginary time quantum mechanical problem in 1-dimensional space, which was also firstly noted by Kardar K87 ; K96 ; EK00 . The advantages of this approach is that one can make use of the Bethe ansatz which provides us with the exact ground state of the quantum problem. Moreover, from the latter one gets many hints about how to construct the relevant excited states. In what follows the main steps in this procedure are outlined to emphasize several points which will become relevant in the analysis of the perturbation. The path-integral of the partition function defined in (47) through the action in (48) can be reinterpreted as that of a quantum system in imaginary time. In the absence of temperature difference between A and B, the Schrödinger equation reads as

$$\frac{d}{dt}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(\{x_{G,\alpha }\},t)}=_0\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(\{x_{G,\alpha }\},t)}.$$
(49)
with the following Schrödinger operator for $`2\times n`$-bosons,

$$_0=\underset{G,\alpha }{}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }\frac{^2}{x_{G,\alpha }^2}\frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}\underset{((G,\alpha ),(G^{},\beta ))}{}\delta (x_{G,\alpha }x_{G^{},\beta }).$$
(50)
The 1st term represents the kinetic energy. The 2nd term stands for attractive short-ranged interactions between the bosons where the sum is taken over all possible pairs of bosons (excluding unphysical self-interactions which are absent in lattice models).

Let us note that here we have two kinds of “bosons”. The bosons of A can be distinguished from those of B and vice versa while the bosons cannot be distinguished from each other within the subgroups. However, the Schrödinger operator has an even higher bosonic symmetry: it is symmetric under permutations of all the $`2\times n`$ replicas. This is nothing but the RS we mentioned above.

By integrating out the coordinates of the free ends of the string $`(\{x_\alpha ,G\},L)`$ while keeping the other ends fixed at $`(0,0)`$, we formally obtain the disorder-averaged partition function of the replicated system as,

$`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(L)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{G=A,B}{}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}dx_{G,\alpha }\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(\{x_{G,\alpha }\},L)}}`$ (51)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}e^{LE_\mu }{\displaystyle \underset{G=A,B}{}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}dx_{G,\alpha }<\{x_{G,\alpha }\}|\psi _\mu ><\psi _\mu |\{0\}>}`$
where $`|\psi _\mu >`$ and $`E_\mu `$ are the eigenstates and eigenvalues of the Schrödinger operator $`_0`$ defined in (50). In the large $`L`$ (large time) limit, the partition function will be dominated by the eigen states of the Schrödinger operator with lowest eigen-values (’energies’) including the ground state.

The ground-state wavefunction is well-known to satisfy the Bethe ansatz reading,

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\{x_{G,\alpha }\}>\mathrm{exp}\left(\lambda \underset{((G,\alpha ),(G^{},\beta ))}{}|x_{\alpha ,G}x_{\beta ,G^{}}|\right)\mathrm{with}\lambda =\kappa D/(k_\mathrm{B}T)^3,$$
(52)
where the sum is taken over all possible pairs among the $`2\times n`$ replicas labeled as $`(G(=A,B),\alpha (=1,\mathrm{},n))`$. The index RS stands for the fact that this wave-function has the RS, i. e. permutation symmetry among all $`2\times n`$-replicas. In the following we label this state as replica symmetric (RS).

In general, the ground state of one-dimensional $`n`$-body problems with contact interaction is constructed in the following way: the $`2\times n`$ particles are ordered and occupy a certain segment within which they are free. The global wavefunction consists on the product of $`2\times n`$ plane waves whose moments $`\lambda _m`$ have to fulfill certain matching and boundary conditions which in our case result in $`\lambda _m=(2n+12m)\lambda `$ with $`m=1,\mathrm{},2n`$. The ground-state energy is then the sum of the kinetic energy of the $`2\times n`$ ’free-particles’,

$$E_\mathrm{g}=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }\underset{m=1}{\overset{2n}{}}\lambda _m^2=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }\frac{1}{3}\lambda ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}n(4n^21).$$
(53)
Although the ground state makes most important contribution to the partition function, it may not be the only one. If one only takes into account the contribution of the ground state neglecting all other excited states, one would wrongly conclude from (53) and the relation (4) that only the 1st and 3rd cumulants of the correlation functions of free-energy fluctuations exist. This conclusion is definitely unphysical because the 2nd cumulant cannot be zero. Such a pathology implies existence of continuum of gap-less excited states which give important contributions to the partition function.

Orland and Bouchaud BO90  pointed out that the translational symmetry of the Schrödinger operator allows to construct a continuous spectrum of excited states by considering center of mass (CM) motion. Such an excited state with wave-vector $`k`$ has the form,

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS},\mathrm{k}}|\{x_{G,\alpha }\}>=\mathrm{exp}(ik\underset{G,\alpha }{}x_{G,\alpha })<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\{x_{G,\alpha }\}>$$
(54)
with eigenvalue

$$E_{\mathrm{CM}}(k)=E_\mathrm{g}+2n\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }k^2.$$
(55)
The resultant partition function obtained by integrating out the continuous spectrum can be put into the following scaling form K96 ,

$$\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}=2n\beta \overline{f}L+g(2nL^{1/3}).$$
(56)
where $`\overline{f}`$ in the 1st term represents the average free-energy density. The function $`g(x)`$ in the 2nd term is analytic for small $`x`$, implying that the q-th cumulant of the correlation function of free-energy fluctuations scales as $`L^{q/3}`$. Thus the characteristic exponent for the free-energy fluctuation, which is called stiffness exponent (8), is obtained as $`\theta =1/3`$, being consistent with extensive numerical results of transfer matrix calculations HZ95  and other analytical approaches such as the mapping to the noisy Burgers equation HHF85 .

Parisi P90  pointed out another important spectrum of excited states in which replicas are grouped into clusters of bound states. Each cluster is supposed to be described by a Bethe ansatz type wavefunction so that there is replica (permutation) symmetry within each cluster. An important assumption is that these clusters are located far enough from each other so that their mutual overlap is negligible. The latter is allowed if the transverse size of the system is infinitely large.

In our present context, we have two kinds of bosons corresponding to the two real replicas A and B which can be distinguished from each other. Thus it is natural to consider an excited state which consists of separate Bethe type clusters $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}^A|`$ for A and $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}^B|`$ for B, with no mutual overlaps,

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|=<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}^A|\times <\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}^B|<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}^B|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}^A>=0.$$
(57)
It’s associated energy is readily obtained as,

$$E_{\mathrm{RSB}}=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }\frac{1}{3}\lambda ^2n\left(n^21\right)\times 2.$$
(58)
This wavefunction has the reduced replica symmetry mentioned in section III, i .e. it is symmetric under permutations among A and B groups and the exchange operation $`AB`$. We will call this state as replica symmetry broken (RSB) state in the following.

A very important feature is that the gap of the RSB excited state with respect to the RS ground state energy, which is of order $`O(n^3)`$, become vanishingly small in the $`n0`$ limit. Thus such an excited state should be also taken into account since we must take $`n0`$ before $`L\mathrm{}`$ in the evaluation of the replicated partition function. Presumably each cluster of bound states can have its own center of mass motion. Therefore the RSB excited state should have the continuum of excited states of CM motion similar to that associated with the RS ground state mentioned above. Then the resultant partition function $`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}`$ which will be obtained integrating out these RSB excited states and the associated continuum due to CM motions may be put again into the scaling form (56). The latter will again yield $`\theta =1/3`$.

To summarize, the replica symmetry is not broken but only in a marginal way. As suggested by Parisi P90 , the role of these RSB excited states will become important if perturbations are considered. In the following we generalize the approach of P90  and exploit its implications to study the stability of the frozen phase against various perturbations we considered in section IV.

### V.1 A Perturbative Approach by Replica Scaling Ansatz

Now we address the situation in which the two real replicas $`A`$ and $`B`$ are under infinitesimally weak perturbations. The partition function of the system under such a perturbation can be formally written as,

$`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n(L)}={\displaystyle \underset{G=A,B}{}\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{n}{}}𝒟\varphi _{G,\alpha }\mathrm{exp}\left(S_{A+B}[\varphi _{G,\alpha }]\delta S_{A+B}[\varphi _{G,\alpha }]\right)}.`$ (59)
where the action $`S_{A+B}[\varphi _{G,\alpha }]`$ is the original one (48) which is fully replica symmetric and the 2nd one $`\delta S_{A+B}[\varphi _{G,\alpha }]`$ is the perturbation term. Suppose that we can map the problem onto the quantum mechanical one such that the corresponding Schrödinger operator becomes,

$$_{A+B}=_0+\delta $$
(60)
where $`_0`$ is the original fully replica symmetric $`2\times n`$-boson operator given in (50) and $`\delta `$ corresponds to the $`\delta S`$ in the path-integral. As we will see in the following, these perturbations try to break the RS present in the original system down to the reduced symmetry: replica symmetric only within A and B subgroups. At this stage, the whole quantum problem can not be solved exactly. However, we can obtain a useful insight into our problem by perturbation analysis proposed by Parisi P90 .

Here let us note a problem in the case of perturbation by random tilt field considered in section IV.3.2. If one tries to obtain a continuous model starting from a lattice model as considered by Kardar K87 , one can find that inter-replica coupling terms due to the random tilt field emerge at 2nd order in the transverse hopping rate of the lattice string (denoted as $`\gamma `$ in K87 ). This implies that the mapping in the continuous limit to a Schrödinger equation is invalid in this case, because the Schrödinger equation contains only first order time derivatives. Thus we do not consider this case in this section.

From standard perturbation theory we can evaluate the first order corrections to the original ground-state energy as,

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{RS}}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }\lambda ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}n(4n^21)+\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}},$$
(61)
where the label $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ stands for the perturbation strength and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|`$ is the ground-state wavefunction given in (52). The 1st term corresponds to the ground-state energy given in (53).

Following Parisi, we will consider the RSB excited state (57).

$$<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\{x_{G,\alpha }\}>\mathrm{exp}(\lambda \underset{\alpha <\beta }{}|x_{A,\alpha }x_{A,\beta }|)\mathrm{exp}(\lambda \underset{\alpha <\beta }{}|x_{B,\alpha }x_{B,\beta }|)$$
(62)
with $`\lambda =\kappa D/(k_\mathrm{B}T)^3`$. This wavefunction has the reduced replica symmetry. At 1st order in perturbation theory, we can compute the energy of the RSB excited states as follows,

$$E_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{RSB}}=\frac{1}{3}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }\lambda ^2\mathrm{\hspace{0.25em}2}n(n^21)+\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}},$$
(63)
where the 1st term is the energy of the unperturbed system given by (58).

Let us introduce the ratio of the contributions to the partition function $`\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}`$ due to the RS ground state and the RSB excited state,

$$D(n,L)(E_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{RSB}}E_\mathrm{\Delta }^{\mathrm{RS}})L=D_0(n,L)\delta D(n,L)$$
(64)
where

$$D_0(n,L)=\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{\kappa }\lambda ^2n^3L>0$$
(65)
is the original ’energy gap’ and the correction is due to the 1st order perturbation.

$$\delta D(n,L)=L\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}}\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}}\right).$$
(66)
In the following we call $`D(n,L)`$ as “gap”. If it is large enough, the contribution of the RSB excited state to the partition function becomes negligible. We will find that, in general, the correction term of the gap has the form,

$$\delta D(n,L)=\mathrm{\Delta }n^pL<0.$$
(67)
Here the symbol $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ stands for the strength of the perturbation. Most importantly the correction term $`\delta D(n,L)/L=n^p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will turn out to be negative for all the perturbations under consideration. In what follows we will refer to $`p`$ as the order of the perturbation which will play a central role. More precisely the correction to the gap $`\delta D(n,L)/L`$ will contain several terms of different powers of $`n`$. Here $`p`$ is the exponent of the term with smallest exponent, which becomes most relevant in the $`n0`$ limit.

If the 1st order correction turns out to give a null contribution, we have to proceed to higher order perturbation calculations which is obviously impossible without the complete knowledge of the whole spectrum of excited states. Fortunately for all the cases except for the case of the perturbation by uniform tilt field we will find non-zero first order corrections. Higher order correction terms will be higher order in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which will be unimportant since we are interested in the scaling properties in infinitesimally weak perturbation limit $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. Furthermore it is unlikely that the higher order terms are lower orders of $`n`$. Thus they will be irrelevant in the $`n0`$ limit. For the case of uniform tilt field, we will fortunately find exact RS and RSB bound states of the system which will allow the evaluation of the gap $`D(n,L)`$ also in this situation.

Now using (67) and (65) in (64) we find,

$$D(n,L)=D_0(n,L)\left[1\left(\frac{n}{n^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })}\right)^{(3p)}\right]$$
(68)
with

$$n^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })=\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\lambda ^2k_\mathrm{B}T/\kappa }\right)^{1/(3p)}.$$
(69)
From the above result we can generalize the an argument used by Parisi for the explicit repulsive case (p=1) to extract the following conclusions. As far as $`n`$ is integer and the strength of the perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is small, the contribution of the RSB state becomes negligible in the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{}`$. However, we have to consider the other limiting case: the $`n0`$ limit should be taken before $`L\mathrm{}`$. Now if $`p<3`$, which will turn out to be the case for all the perturbations under study, an arbitrarily small perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will induce a level crossing at $`n^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ below which the contribution of RSB excited state becomes larger than that of the original ground state (RS). The result (68) matches perfectly with our definition of chaos (5) since it suggests that the partition function of the total system factorizes in the $`n0`$ limit as

$$\underset{n/n0}{lim}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}=\overline{Z_A^n}\times \overline{Z_B^n})\text{if }p<3.$$
(70)
implying a complete change of the free-energy landscape.

Now let us further exploit from the above result to find a more physical picture. In the absence of perturbations, the logarithm of the replicated partition function has a functional form (56) which reads as, $`\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}=\beta \overline{f}L(2n)+g(2nL^{1/3}).`$ On the other hand, (68) implies $`n/n^{}`$ is another natural variable of the replicated partition function.222 To treat the replica number $`n`$ as a scaling variable has been proposed by several authors HZ95 ; K96 ; EK00 . Combining the two, we conjecture the following scaling ansatz,

$$\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}+\beta \overline{f}L(2n)=\stackrel{~}{g}(2nL^{1/3},n/n^{})=\stackrel{~}{g}(2nL^{1/3},L/L^{}).$$
(71)
where we introduced a characteristic length $`L^{}`$ defined as

$$L^{}(n^{})^3\mathrm{\Delta }^{3/(3p)}$$
(72)
An interesting observation is that $`n0`$ limit induces the thermodynamic limit $`L`$ if the variable $`nL^{1/3}=x`$ is fixed. Then for fixed $`x`$ we expect,

$`\stackrel{~}{g}(x,L/L^{}0)`$ $``$ $`g(2x)L/L^{}1(n/n^{}1)\text{’weak perturbation regime’}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g}(x,L/L^{}\mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`2\times g(x)L/L^{}1(n/n^{}1)\text{’strong perturbation regime’}.`$ (73)
The 1st equation means that for small enough lengthscales, the effect of perturbation is small and the partition function is essentially the same as that of the unperturbed system of $`2\times n`$-replicas given in (56). The 2nd equation is the consequence of having to two statistically independent systems in the limit $`L\mathrm{}`$.

From the above scaling ansatz, it follows that the correlation function of the free-energy fluctuations $`C_F(L)`$ considered in section IV.6 should have the scaling form $`\stackrel{~}{C}_F(L/L^{})`$ which goes to $`0`$ as $`L/L^{}\mathrm{}`$. Similarly the overlap function $`q(L,\delta U)`$ considered in section IV.5 should also have the scaling form $`\stackrel{~}{q}(L/L^{})`$ which goes to $`0`$ as $`L/L^{}\mathrm{}`$. Thus the crossover length $`L^{}`$ should be identified with the overlap length $`L_c(\delta U)`$. The above ansatz implies that the de-correlation of the free-energy landscape between A and B takes place as a universal phenomenon whose features are classified according to the order of the perturbation $`p`$. In the following, we consider the perturbations considered in previous real-space scaling argument section IV specifically one by one based on the replica approach and evaluate the correction to the gap (67) explicitly and extract the strength of perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the order of perturbation $`p`$. Interestingly enough, we will find that the two approaches give the same overlap length.

Finally let us comment on how to choose detailed forms of perturbations which we discuss in the following. We consider perturbations such that the original symmetry is preserved as much as possible : the $`2\times n`$-replica system remains invariant at least under permutation among n-replicas belonging to the same subset A and B and exchange $`AB`$, i. e. the reduced replica symmetry.

#### V.1.1 Short-Ranged Repulsive Coupling

Let us begin with the perturbation which introduces an explicit repulsion term between strings $`A`$ and $`B`$ as given by the Hamiltonian in (17). The corresponding Schrödinger operator for the replicated system can be obviously put into the form of (60) \- fully replica symmetric term + perturbation - to obtain,

$$_{A+B}=H_0+\delta \text{with}\delta =\frac{ϵ}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\underset{\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n}{}\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{B,\alpha })ϵ>0.$$
(74)
Clearly the repulsive perturbing term breaks the original RS P90 .

Computing explicitly the expectation value of the a delta-interaction term with respect to the Bethe ground state one obtains P90 ,

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{B,\alpha })|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}}=\frac{\lambda }{6}(2n+1).$$
(75)
while

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{B,\alpha })|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}}{\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}}=0.$$
(76)
because the bound states of A and B subsets have no overlap $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{RSB}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{RSB}>=0`$ (57).

Thus the correction term to the gap (67) is obtained as,

$$\frac{\delta D(n,L)}{L}=\frac{\lambda }{6}(2n+1)\times \left(\frac{ϵ}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\right)\times n.$$
(77)
Note that the reduced replica symmetry: permutation symmetry among n-replicas belonging to the same subset plus the exchange symmetry $`AB`$ is still preserved. Thus the leading order of the perturbation (smallest power of $`n`$, which becomes most relevant in the $`n0`$ limit) is read off as $`p=1`$ and the strength of perturbation as $`\mathrm{\Delta }ϵ`$. Finally, using the relation (72) we obtain the crossover length $`L^{}ϵ^{\frac{3}{2}}`$ . Remarkably the latter turns out to be the same as the overlap length (20) found in the real space scaling argument.

#### V.1.2 Potential Change

If a slight difference of the random potential is introduced as described in (21), the corresponding Schrödinger operator of the $`2\times n`$ replica system reads,

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{G,\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{G,\alpha }^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}}\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{A,\beta }){\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}}\delta (x_{B,\alpha }x_{B,\beta })`$ (78)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1+\delta ^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}}\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{B,\beta })`$
$`=`$ $`_0+\delta `$
with the symmetry breaking term

$$\delta =\frac{\delta ^2}{2}\underset{(\alpha ,\beta )}{}\delta \left(x_{A,\alpha }(z)x_{B,\beta }(z)\right).$$
(79)
Here we are in the infinitesimally weak perturbation limit, $`\delta 0`$ so higher order terms can be ignored.

A remarkable feature is that the 2nd term of the last equation, which is the perturbation term $`\delta `$, is again repulsive. Note that the sum is taken over $`n^2`$ rather than $`n(n1)/2`$ pairs. The expectation value of the delta-function with respect to the RS ground state and the RSB excited state has already been computed in (75) and (76), hence we immediately find the correction to the gap as,

$$\frac{\delta D(n,L)}{L}=\frac{\lambda }{6}(2n+1)\times \frac{\delta ^2}{2}\times n^2$$
(80)
Note that this perturbation contains the reduced replica symmetry. The latter was made possible by a specific choice of the perturbation by introducing the rescaling factor $`1/\sqrt{1+\delta ^2}`$ used in (21). We can now read off the order of the perturbation as $`p=2`$ and the strength of the perturbation as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta ^2`$. Now using (72), we obtain the overlap length $`L^{}\delta ^6`$. Indeed, the latter turns out to be the one obtained by the real space scaling argument given in (23).

#### V.1.3 Temperature Change

Now two real replicas in the same quenched random potential $`V(\varphi (z),z)`$ are subjected to a small temperature difference.

The Schrödinger operator for the $`2\times n`$-replica system with A at temperature $`T_A`$ and B at temperature $`T_B`$ is the following,

$$=\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T_A}{2\kappa }\frac{^2}{x_{A,\alpha }^2}\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T_B}{2\kappa }\frac{^2}{x_{B,\alpha }^2}\underset{((G,\alpha ),(G^{},\beta ))}{}\frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T_G)(k_\mathrm{B}T_G^{})}\delta (x_{G,\alpha }x_{G^{},\beta }).$$
(81)
The RS is apparently lost in the operator. Let us choose the following specific parameters of the perturbation,

$`T_A`$ $``$ $`T+\delta T`$
$`T_B`$ $``$ $`T\delta T`$
$`D`$ $``$ $`D\left[13\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{T}}\right)^2\right].`$ (82)
Then we can put the operator in the form,

$$=_0+\delta ,$$
(83)
with the symmetry breaking terms,

$`\delta =`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{B}\delta T}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{A,\alpha }^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{A,\beta })`$ (84)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{B}\delta T}{2\kappa }}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_{B,\alpha }^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}\delta (x_{B,\alpha }x_{B,\beta })`$
$`+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{T}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{B,\beta })+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{T}}\right)^3.`$
In this last equation, we are considering the limit of an infinitesimally weak perturbation $`\delta T/T0`$ to neglect higher order terms. The expectation value of the perturbing operator with respect to the RS ground state is obtained as,

$`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}>`$ $`=2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{T}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}|\delta (x_{A,\alpha }x_{B,\beta })|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}>`$ (85)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}(2n+1)\times 2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta T}{T}}\right)^2\times n^2.`$
Here we have used the fact that the ground-state wavefunction is symmetric with respect to the exchange $`AB`$ plus (75). Due to the latter, the terms of order $`O(\delta T)`$ cancel out and we are left with the $`O(\delta T^2)`$ term. Note also that the sum is again taken over $`n\times n`$ pairs of replicas rather than $`n(n1)/2`$.

On the other hand, the expectation value of the perturbing term with respect the RSB excited state is obtained immediately as $`<\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}|\delta |\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}>=0`$ using (76) and the fact that RSB wavefunction is symmetric with respect to the exchange $`AB`$ and (57). Using the above results we find the correction to the gap as, 333The choice of “renormalized” $`D`$ in (82) allowed to simplify the calculation. One can work also with original $`D`$ and will find the same positive $`\delta D(n,L)/L`$ of order $`O(n^2)`$ up to some irrelevant differences.

$$\frac{\delta D(n,L)}{L}=\frac{\lambda }{6}\frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}(2n+1)\times 2\left(\frac{\delta T}{T}\right)^2\times n^2$$
(86)
Note that the resultant gap is invariant under the exchange $`AB`$ which was made possible by the anti-symmetric direction of the change of temperature (82). From the above results, we read off the order of the perturbation as $`p=2`$ and the strength of the perturbation as $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\delta T)^2`$. Quite remarkably the latter used in (72) again yields the crossover length $`L^{}(\delta T)^6`$ which is the same as the one found by the real space scaling argument (31).

#### V.1.4 Uniform Tilt Field

Finally we consider to apply a uniform tilt $`h`$ to one real replica and $`h`$ to the other. The effective action describing the uniform field perturbation (17) is the following,

$`S_{A+B}[\varphi _{G,\alpha }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^L}dz[{\displaystyle \underset{G,\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{G,\alpha }(z)}{dz}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{G,G^{},\alpha ,\beta }{}}\delta (\varphi _{G,\alpha }(z)\varphi _{G^{},\beta }(z))`$ (87)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{h}{k_\mathrm{B}T}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{A,\alpha }(z)}{dz}}+{\displaystyle \frac{h}{k_\mathrm{B}T}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi _{B,\alpha }(z)}{dz}}].`$
Here not only the full permutation symmetry among the $`2\times n`$ replicas but also the global rotational symmetry is lost due to the field. Thus the universality of this perturbation should be very different from the ones discussed so far. The corresponding Schrödinger operator of the quantum mechanical problem reads as,

$$=\underset{G,\alpha }{}\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }\frac{^2}{x_{G,\alpha }^2}\frac{D}{(k_\mathrm{B}T)^2}\underset{G,G^{},\alpha ,\beta }{}\delta (x_\alpha x_\beta )\frac{h}{\kappa }\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{}{x_{A,\alpha }}+\frac{h}{\kappa }\underset{\alpha }{}\frac{}{x_{B,\alpha }}.$$
(88)
Note that the first two terms are the original operator $`_0`$ given in (50).

Now let us analyze the change of the RS state (52). One can easily see that the 1st order perturbation vanishes simply because the total “momentum” of the ground state is zero. On the other hand, one can also easily note that when a field is applied, the original wavefunction is no longer an eigenstate. Fortunately, the exact eigenstate can be found in this odd situation in which particles belonging to different subsets (A and B) are driven into opposite directions. The former Schrödinger operator(88) can be rewritten into the fully symmetric form of the original problem (50) by shifting the momenta,

$$\frac{}{x_{A,\alpha }^{}}=\frac{}{x_{A,\alpha }}\frac{h}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\frac{}{x_{B,\alpha }^{}}=\frac{}{x_{B,\alpha }}+\frac{h}{k_\mathrm{B}T}.$$
(89)
Notice that this transformation preserves the commutation relations between conjugated coordinates and moments (i.e. $`[\frac{}{x_{G,\alpha }^{}}`$$`x_{G,\alpha }]=[\frac{}{x_{G,\alpha }}`$$`x_{G,\alpha }]`$). In terms of these new coordinates the RS ground state again takes the form of the Bethe Ansatz solution of (52). And, therefore, the final groundstate can be obtained from Bethe’s wave-function by undoing the previous shifting of moments,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\{x_{G,\alpha }\})\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{h}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\underset{\alpha }{}x_{A,\alpha }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{h}{k_\mathrm{B}T}\underset{\alpha }{}x_{B,\alpha }\right),$$
(90)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\{x_{G,\alpha }\})`$ is the original Bethe ansatz wavefunction for $`2\times n`$ replicas given in (52). The eigenvalue $`E_h`$ corresponding to this wave function is obtained as

$$E_h=E_0+\frac{nh^2}{\kappa k_\mathrm{B}T},$$
(91)
which does not depend on the ordering of the particles. Here $`E_0`$ is the original ground-state energy $`E_g`$ given in (53). Although the original full permutation symmetry is lost in the wave function (90), it still described a sort of bound state on $`2\times n`$-particles. So we may refer to it as RS state. In the next subsection, we will discuss the mapping onto the Sinai model and the physical meaning will become clearer. The 2nd term of (91) gives the change of the eigenvalue of the RS state due to the perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{RS}=nh^2/(\kappa k_\mathrm{B}T)`$.

Next let us consider the change of the eigenvalue corresponding to the RSB excited state which again is formed by two separate bound states for A and B subsets. Here it is useful to note that if all the particles are subjected to the common field, the unperturbed single-bound-state wavefunction is still an eigenstate of the operator. Based on this observation, one immediately finds that the unperturbed RSB wavefunction is still valid eigenstate under the field because of the two fold reasons: i) there is no overlap between A and B and ii) rotational and replica symmetries are preserved within the same subsets. Thus the eigenvalue of the RSB state does not change by the perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{RSB}=0`$.

Using the above values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{RS}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }E_{RSB}`$ we obtain

$$\frac{D(n,L)}{L}=\frac{nh^2}{\kappa k_\mathrm{B}T}.$$
(92)
We can now read off $`p=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }h^2`$, which yields the overlap length $`L_ch^3`$. Then using (72) we find the same overlap length $`L^{}h^3`$ being consistent with the result (18) of the real-space scaling argument.

## VI Mapping to a modified Sinai Model

In the previous section, we found de-correlation the free-energy landscapes of perturbed and unperturbed systems. Here we analyze the problem further for the case of uniform tilt field based on the connection between the $`1+1`$ dimensional DPRM and the statistical mechanics of the Sinai model Sinai ; P90 ; M90 ; BO90 . With this mapping, effective 1-dimensional energy landscape for the free end $`x(L)`$ of the 1+1 DPRM is obtained as a Sinai potential which is generated by a simple random walk in a 1-dimensional space.

Here we consider this mapping onto the Sinai model in the presence of the uniform tilt field by evaluating the partition function (51). First, we evaluate the partition function assuming the RS and using the ground-state wavefunction given in (90). Second, we perform another evaluation assuming replica symmetry breaking (RSB) which only allows the reduced replica symmetry and using the ’clustered’ wave function (62). The former is supposed good for the weakly perturbed regime $`LL_c(h)`$ while the latter is good for the strongly perturbed regime $`LL_c(h)`$. In order to interpolate the two limits, we propose a phenomenological model using a bounded Sinai potential.

#### VI.0.1 Replica Symmetric case

We start by considering the fully replica symmetric (RS) ansatz following Bouchaud and Orland BO90 . The ground-state wavefunction under a uniform tilt is given by (90). In order to take into account the motion of the center of mass (CM) of the $`2\times n`$ replicas, we consider the spectrum of excited states whose wavefunctions are given by,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}(h,k:\{x_{G,\alpha }\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\{x_{G,\alpha }\})\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{h}{k_\mathrm{B}T}(\underset{\alpha }{}x_{A,\alpha }\underset{\alpha }{}x_{B,\alpha })\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(ik\underset{G,\alpha }{}x_{G,\alpha }\right).$$
(93)
The 1st factor is the Bethe wavefunction given in (52) which describes the unperturbed bound state of $`2\times n`$ replicas. Now we use the Gaussian transformation introduced by Parisi in P90  to represent Bethe’s wavefunction as follows,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\{x_{G,\alpha }\})e^{\lambda _{((G,\alpha ),(G^{},\beta ))}|x_{\alpha ,G}x_{\beta ,G^{}}|}=𝒟𝒱\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑x\frac{1}{4\lambda }\left(\frac{d𝒱}{dx}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{G,\alpha }{}𝒱(x_{G,\alpha })\right).$$
(94)
The 2nd factor arises from the uniform tilt perturbation: $`h`$ to subset $`A`$ and $`h`$ to subset $`B`$. The last factor is the plane wave of wavevector $`k`$ which accounts for the free CM motion. Here the ground state is included as the $`k=0`$ case. One can easily find the eigenvalues to be,

$$E_{\mathrm{RS}}(h,k)=E_0+\frac{nh^2}{\kappa k_\mathrm{B}T}+n\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{\kappa }k^2.$$
(95)
The 1st term is the original ground-state energy $`E_g`$ of the unperturbed system given in (53), the 2nd term is due to the perturbation and the last term is due to the CM motion.

Let us now suppose that replicas have both ends fixed: one at $`(0,0)`$ and the other at $`x_A`$ in the case of subset $`A`$ and $`x_B`$ in the case of subset $`B`$. Then the partition function (51) is evaluated by integrating out the spectrum of excited states as,

$`\overline{Z_{\mathrm{RS}}(0,0|x_A,x_B)}`$ $``$ $`e^{(E_0+nh^2/(2\kappa k_\mathrm{B}T))L}{\displaystyle 𝒟𝒱\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑x\frac{1}{4\lambda }\left(\frac{d𝒱}{dx}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(n𝒱(x_A)+n𝒱(x_B)\right)}`$ (96)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{exp}((h/k_\mathrm{B}T)(nx_A+nx_B)){\displaystyle 𝑑k\sqrt{Ln\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{\kappa \pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left(Ln\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{\kappa }k^2+ik(nx_A+nx_B)\right)}`$
$``$ $`e^{(E_0+nh^2/(\kappa k_\mathrm{B}T))L}\overline{\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(nL^{1/3}E_{\mathrm{RS}\mathrm{Sinai}}(T,h,𝒱;y_A,y_B)\right)\right]}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}}.`$
where $`\overline{[\mathrm{}]}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}}`$ means the average over the effective potential $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}`$,

$$\overline{[\mathrm{}]}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}}=𝒟\stackrel{~}{𝒱}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑y(1/4\lambda )({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{𝒱}}{dy}})^2}}\mathrm{}$$
(97)
and $`E_{\mathrm{RS}\mathrm{Sinai}}(T,h,y_A,y_B)`$ is the effective Hamiltonian,

$$E_{\mathrm{RS}\mathrm{Sinai}}(T,h,𝒱;y_A,y_B)=\frac{\kappa }{2k_\mathrm{B}T}\frac{(y_A+y_B)^2}{2}+\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(y_A)+\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(y_B)\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}y_A+\frac{\stackrel{~}{h}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}y_B$$
(98)
in terms of the scaled variables,

$$x=L^{2/3}y𝒱=L^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{𝒱}h=L^{1/3}\stackrel{~}{h}.$$
(99)
By increasing $`nL^{1/3}`$, the partition function will be dominated by the minimum of the effective Hamiltonian $`E_{\mathrm{RS}\mathrm{Sinai}}(T,h,𝒱;y_A,y_B)`$. Then the following physical interpretation can be made: the end point of the strings $`A`$ and $`B`$ are subjected to the same effective quenched random potential which displays the long-ranged correlations in transverse space just as the Sinai model,

$$\overline{[(\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(y)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(y^{}))^2]}_{\stackrel{~}{V}}|yy^{}|.$$
(100)
Furthermore, the CM of the total system is subjected to an effective Hookian spring which tries to bind together the two real replicas. The effect of the uniform tilt field amounts to an effective transverse force $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ applied at the endpoints of A and B replicas which tries to drive them into the opposite directions. From (99), it can be seen that the effective force $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ increases by increasing the system size $`L`$ (with fixed $`h`$).

#### VI.0.2 Replica Symmetry Broken Case

In section V.1.4, we found out that replica symmetry breaking becomes important at $`LL_c(h)`$ with $`L_c(h)h^3`$ given in (18). Here we perform the evaluation of the partition function (51) based on the replica symmetry breaking (RSB) ansatz. In this case, we consider a spectrum of excited states whose wavefunctions are given by,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RSB}}(h,k_A,k_B:\{x_{G,\alpha }\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\{x_{A,\alpha }\})\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{RS}}(\{x_{B,\alpha }\})\mathrm{exp}\left(ik_A\underset{\alpha }{}x_{A,\alpha }\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(ik_B\underset{\alpha }{}x_{B,\alpha }\right).$$
(101)
The first two factors are due to the original wave function of the RSB state (62) which consists in two clusters of bound states. As we noted in V.1.4, it remains as an eigenstate even under the uniform tilt field since it is assumed that these clusters have zero overlap. Moreover, this absence of overlap also allows independent CM motions of A and B subsets. The later two factors account for such separate CM motions. The eigenvalues are the following,

$$E_{\mathrm{RSB}}(h,k_A,_B)=E_{\mathrm{RSB}}+n\frac{h}{\kappa }(ik_A)+n\frac{h}{\kappa }(ik_B)+n\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }k_A^2+n\frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa }k_B^2.$$
(102)
The 1st term is the original ground-state energy $`E_{\mathrm{RSB}}`$ of the unperturbed RSB state given in (58). The 2nd and 3rd terms come from the perturbation. The last two terms are due to the separate CM motions. The partition function (51) is evaluated by integrating out the spectrum of excited states as,

$`\overline{Z_{\mathrm{RSB}}(0,0|x_A,x_B)}`$ (103)
$`e^{E_0L}{\displaystyle 𝒟V_A\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑x\frac{1}{4\lambda }\left(\frac{dV_A}{dx}\right)^2\right]𝒟V_B\mathrm{exp}\left[𝑑x\frac{1}{4\lambda }\left(\frac{dV_B}{dx}\right)^2\right]\mathrm{exp}\left(nV_A(x_A)+nV_B(x_B)\right)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle }dk_A\sqrt{Ln{\displaystyle \frac{nk_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa \pi }}}{\displaystyle }dk_B\sqrt{Ln{\displaystyle \frac{k_\mathrm{B}T}{2\kappa \pi }}}\mathrm{exp}(Ln{\displaystyle \frac{2k_\mathrm{B}T}{\kappa }}k_A^2Ln{\displaystyle \frac{2k_\mathrm{B}T}{\kappa }}k_B^2Ln{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\kappa }}(ik_A)+Ln{\displaystyle \frac{h}{\kappa }}(ik_B)+ik(nx_A+nx_B))`$
$``$ $`e^{(E_0+(2n)h^2/(2\kappa k_\mathrm{B}T))L}\overline{\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(nL^{1/3}E_{\mathrm{RSB}\mathrm{Sinai}}(T,h,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_A,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_B;y_A,y_B)\right)\right]}_{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_A,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_B},`$
where $`E_{\mathrm{RSB}\mathrm{Sinai}}(T,h,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_A,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_B;y_A,y_B)`$ is the effective Hamiltonian, again in terms of the scaled variables,

$`E_{\mathrm{RS}\mathrm{Sinai}}(T,h,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_A,\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_B;y_A,y_B)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}y_A^2+\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_A(y_A){\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{h}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}}y_A+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}y_B^2+\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_B(y_B)+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{h}}{k_\mathrm{B}T}}y_B.`$ (104)
It is interesting to compare the last result with the replica symmetric (RS) one given in(98). Here the two subsets $`A`$ and $`B`$ are now subjected to independent Hookian springs which try to confine the CM of each subset while the total CM was confined in the RS case. Moreover, the two replicas are now subjected to completely independent Sinai potentials $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_B`$. The effect of the uniform tilt field again amounts to an effective transverse force $`\stackrel{~}{h}`$ applied at the endpoints of A and B replicas which tries to drive them into opposite directions just as in the replica symmetric case.

#### VI.0.3 Discussion

In section V, we conjectured a possible scaling form (71) of the crossover from the weakly perturbed regime at length scales shorter than the overlap length $`L_c`$ where the RS holds, to the strongly perturbed regime where replica symmetry breaking becomes relevant,

$$\mathrm{ln}\overline{Z_{A+B}^n}+\beta \overline{f}L(2n)=\stackrel{~}{g}(2nL^{1/3},L/L_c).$$
(105)
Indeed, the partition function based on the RS and RSB ansatz given in (96) and (103) have the expected form; the $`O(n)`$ term which provides the average free-energy $`\beta \overline{f}L(2n)`$ plus a function which contains the two scaling variables $`nL^{1/3}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}=L^{1/3}h=(L/L_c(h))^{1/3}`$. In the last equation we used the relation $`L_c(h)h^3`$ given in (18).

Here we have only discussed the two limiting ansätze: RS and RSB. The crossover between the two limits remains an open problem. Here let us propose a modified Sinai model which interpolates the limits. We define effective Hamiltonian for the endpoints’ positions of replicas $`A`$ and $`B`$ at a given length reads as follows,

$`H=H_A+H_BH_A={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}y_A^2+\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(y_A)+\stackrel{~}{h}y_AH_B={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{2k_\mathrm{B}T}}y_B^2+\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(y_B)\stackrel{~}{h}y_B`$ (106)
where $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(x)`$ is a bounded Sinai potential with correlations,

$$\overline{(\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(x)\stackrel{~}{𝒱}(y))^2}C(|xy|)\text{with}C(u)=y+(1u)\theta (u1)$$
(107)
Here the correlation grows as $`C(u)=u`$ for $`u1`$ and saturates $`C(u)=1`$ for larger separations $`u>1`$. The latter saturation (confined random walk) allows to realize statistically independent Sinai valleys at large separations (RSB). Actually such a saturation of the effective energy landscape was observed numerically in the DPRM by Mézard M90 .

In section VII.1 we analyze the crossover phenomena in detail by a transfer matrix method. Subsequently, in section VII.2, we analyze the phenomena numerically using the modified Sinai model defined above and compare the result with that obtained in the original DPRM.

## VII Numerical Analysis

Now we examine numerically in detail the properties of anomalous response of the DPRM towards various perturbations discussed in the previous sections by transfer matrix calculations. We focus on the anticipated universal scaling properties of the crossover from the weakly to strongly perturbed regime across the overlap length which has not been clarified in previous numerical studies (see however M90 ).

Specifically, we consider a lattice model on a two-dimensional lattice of size $`L\times U`$ as shown in Fig. 1. The string of length $`L`$ is directed along the $`z`$ axis with transverse displacements in the direction of the $`u`$-axis. The configuration of the string is represented by the positions of the vertices “X” which the configuration goes through, i. e. $`(u(z),z)`$ with $`z=1,\mathrm{},L`$. The “gradient” $`\sigma (z)=u(z+1)u(z)`$ is constrained to take only the values $`+1`$ or $`1`$. Note that elasticity is realized entropically within this lattice model. The random potential $`V(u,z)`$ is defined on each vertex $`(u,z)`$ on which it takes a random value drawn from a uniform distribution between $`V_0`$ and $`V_0`$. The energy of a configuration $`\{u(z)\}`$ is given by,

$`E[V,u]={\displaystyle \underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}}V(u(z),z)`$ (108)
One end of the configuration is fixed at $`(0,0)`$ and the other end is allowed to move freely. On the transverse direction we have imposed periodic boundary conditions such that $`V(u+U,z)=V(u,z)`$. The natural unit for the temperature is the scaled thermal energy $`k_\mathrm{B}T/V_0`$ where $`V_0`$ is the unit for the random potential. In the following, the Boltzmann’s constant is set to $`k_\mathrm{B}=1`$ and the unit for the random potential to $`V_0=1`$, so that we will often denote the scaled thermal energy simply as $`T`$.

First we prepare two real replicas A and B identically except for small perturbations which we will describe in detail. Depending on the type of the problem, we use either zero temperature HH85  or finite temperature versions K85  of the transfer matrix method to compute correlation functions. Here and in the following $`\overline{X}`$ denotes the average of a quantity $`X`$ over different realizations of the random potential and $`<X>`$ denotes the thermal average of $`X`$ (or simply the value of $`X`$ at ground state in the case of zero temperature). We have examined various system sizes up to $`L=10^4`$ and have averaged over $`N_s=10^4`$ different realizations of the random potential except for the explicit repulsive coupling case for which we used system sizes up to $`L=10^3`$ and $`N_s=10^4`$. The limitation of the system size used for the latter case is that we have to take into account explicitly the inter-real-replica coupling in the transfer matrix which requires one to keep track of trajectories of two strings simultaneously and thus much larger computational effort M90 .

First we examine the mean-squared transverse displacement of the end point due to the perturbation,

$$B_2(L)=\overline{<u_A(L)u_B(L)>^2}.$$
(109)
Here $`u_A(L)`$ and $`u_B(L)`$ stand for the position of the end point of $`A`$ and $`B`$ replicas respectively. Second we compute the exact free-energies (or ground-state energies at zero temperature) of both replicas by the transfer matrix method and examine the correlation of the free-energies,

$$C_F(L)=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F_A(L)\mathrm{\Delta }F_B(L)}}{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F_A^2(L)}}\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }F_B^2(L)}}}.$$
(110)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$ is the deviation from the mean free-energy,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }F_A(L)=F_A(L)\overline{F_A(L)}\mathrm{\Delta }F_B(L)=F_B(L)\overline{F_B(L)}.$$
(111)
We also computed the overlap function $`q(L,\delta U)`$ defined in (39) using the method of M90 . However it requires much computational effort because one has to keep track of trajectories of two strings simultaneously and computation was limited to smaller system sizes $`L500`$. So we do not display the result in the following. We only note that anticipated scaling (40) was checked within the limited system sizes.

### VII.1 Uniform Tilt Field

First we examine the case of the perturbation by a uniform tilt field. For simplify, the temperature is set to zero $`T=0`$. The two replicas have exactly the same random potential. The difference is that replica B is subjected to a uniform tilt field $`h`$ which amounts to a force acting just on its end,

$$E_A[V,h_A=0,u_A]=\underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}V(u_A(z),z)E_B[V,h_B=h,u_B]=\underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}\left[V(u_B(z),z)\right]hu_B(L).$$
(112)
We have used the $`T=0`$ transfer matrix method and obtained the ground states with various perturbation strengths: $`h=0,0.05,0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4`$ for each realization of random potential.

Let us begin with the mean-squared transverse displacement of the end point due to perturbation $`B_2(L)`$ defined in (109). $`B_2(L)`$ is expected to grow with increasing size $`L`$ as $`L^{1+2/3=5/3}`$ in the weakly perturbed regime (see (33)) and as $`L^2`$ in the strongly perturbed regime (see (37) and (36)). Here we used the exponent associated to this perturbation $`\alpha =\zeta =2/3`$ (see section IV.1). The crossover between the two is expected to take place at the overlap length $`L_ch^3`$ given in (18).

In Fig. 2, the data of $`B_2(L)`$ and its scaling plot is shown. For very weak perturbations $`h=0.05`$, the data grows almost entirely as $`L^{1+2/3}`$ except for a short length transient. On the contrary, the data corresponding to a strongest perturbation $`h=0.4`$ grows almost entirely as $`L^2`$, again except for a short length transient. The data for the intermediate range of $`h`$ displays a crossover between the two. Indeed, the scaling plot confirms the expected crossover scaling between the two regimes with no adjustable parameters.

Next let us examine the correlation of the ground-state energies of the perturbed and unperturbed systems through (110). In Fig. 3, the data of the correlation function and its scaling plot is shown.The data shows a de-correlation of the (free-) energy landscape of the two systems as expected. The scaling plot is obtained again without any adjustable parameters. The initial part of the master curve is well fitted by the expected form (46) using $`\alpha =2/3`$, $`C_L(F)=1/(1+A(L/L_c(h))^{2(\alpha 1/3)})`$ with $`A2.0`$. Note that the decay is faster for $`L/L_c(h)1`$.

### VII.2 Modified Sinai model

In section VI we proposed a modified Sinai model as an effective model for the free-ends of DPRM under uniform tilt field. Here we study numerically the properties of “ground states” of the modified Sinai model and study the mean squared displacement corresponding to (109) and the correlation function of the ground state energies corresponding to (110). The effective Hamiltonian given in (106) and (107) at a given length $`L`$ reads as 444Note that here we do not use re-scaled variables such as in (98).555the same results are obtained if we consider that the two strings are tilted with $`h`$ and $`+h`$ respectively.,

$`H=H_A+H_BH_A={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}x_A^2+𝒱(x_A)H_B={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L}}x_B^2+𝒱(x_B)hx_B`$ (113)
where $`𝒱(x)`$ is the modified Sinai potential with correlations,

$$\overline{(𝒱(x)𝒱(y))^2}=u+(u^{}(L)u)\theta (uu^{}(L))\text{with}u^{}(L)=L^{2/3}$$
(114)
First we prepared Sinai potential $`V(x)`$ on a 1 dimensional lattice $`u=1,2,\mathrm{},R`$ of size $`R`$ by generating random walks in 1 dimensional space (regarding the 1 dimensional space coordinate as the “time” coordinate for the random walk). We generated the bounded Sinai potential by a 1 dimensional random walk confined in a box of size $`u^{}`$. Each step of the random walk has variance $`1`$. The same random potential is generated for two replicas A and B. For the B replica, we add an extra tilting potential $`hu`$. Then we numerically looked for the “ground states” of A and B replicas. We examined various system sizes up to $`R=10^4`$ and used $`10^4`$ samples for the disorder averages.

The 2nd moment of the distance between the minimum is computed for various $`L`$ and $`h`$ as,

$$B_2(L)=\overline{[u_A^{\mathrm{min}}(L)u_B^{\mathrm{min}}(L)]^2}.$$
(115)
In Fig. 4, the mean-squared displacement is shown together with the scaling plot. In the scaling plot, we included the master curve of the equivalent DPRM problem shown in Fig 2. We used the anticipated scaling factors $`L_c(h)=(0.9h)^3`$ and $`R_c(h)=1.2h^4`$. The numerical prefactors are chosen such that the master curve of the modified Sinai model lies on that of the DPRM problem.

The correlation function of the fluctuation of ground state energies is computed for various $`L`$ and $`h`$ as,

$$C_E(L)=\frac{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E_A(L)\mathrm{\Delta }E_B(L)}}{\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E_A^2(L)}}\sqrt{\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }E_B^2(L)}}}.$$
(116)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }E(L)`$ is the deviation of a ground-state energy from the mean ground-state energy. In Fig. 5 we show the correlation function of the fluctuation of the ground state energy as well as its scaling plot using the anticipated scaling variable $`L/L_c(h)`$. In the plot, we have included the master curve of the equivalent DPRM problem shown in Fig 3.

It can be seen that the agreement between the modified Sinai model and the original DPRM under uniform tilt field is good. We checked that if the original unbounded Sinai potential is used, the agreement becomes very bad for large lengthscales. Especially, the correlation function $`C_E(L)`$ tends to saturate. These results support the picture that RSB is needed to account for the de-correlation of energy landscape of DPRM under uniform tilt field.

### VII.3 Explicit Repulsive Coupling

Next we consider the case of explicit repulsive coupling. The two replicas are at zero temperature, have exactly the same random potential and are coupled by an explicit repulsive coupling $`ϵ`$,

$$E[V,V,ϵ,u_A,u_B]=\underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}\left(V(u_A(z),z)+V(u_B(z),z)+ϵ\delta _{u_A(z),u_B(z)}\right)$$
(117)
Here $`ϵ>0`$ is the strength of the perturbation. Mézard M90  proposed a transfer matrix method to deal with such a coupled system at $`T>0`$. Here we used a $`T=0`$ version of the method and studied the ground states with different repulsive couplings $`ϵ=0.05,0.07,0.1,0.2,0.3`$.

In Fig. 6 the data of the mean-squared distance of the end points of the two replicas $`B_2(L)`$ is shown together with its scaling plot. From the discussion in section IV.4, it is expected to grow with increasing size $`L`$ as $`L^{1+1=2}`$ in the weakly perturbed regime and $`L^{4/3}`$ in the strongly perturbed regime. Here we have used the exponent of the perturbation corresponding to the explicit repulsive coupling perturbation $`\alpha =1`$ found in IV.2 (which is related to the order of the perturbation $`p=2`$ in the replica analysis in section V.1)) . The crossover between both regimes is expected to take place at the overlap length $`L_cϵ^{2/3}`$ given in (20). These features are well confirmed by the data and the scaling plot.

In Fig. 7, the correlation of the energies of the two replicas $`E_A=_{z=1}^LV(u_A(z),z)`$ and $`E_B=_{z=1}^LV(u_B(z),z)`$ is shown together with its scaling plot. The initial part of the master curve matches properly with the expected form (46) using $`\alpha =1`$, $`C_L(F)=1/(1+A(L/L_c(h))^{2(11/3)})`$ with $`A0.35`$. For $`L/L_c(h)1`$ the decay is much faster.

### VII.4  Perturbation on temperature, random potential and random tilt field

Finally we examine the class of perturbations which include temperature-shift, potential change and random tilt field. These perturbations are characterized by the exponent $`\alpha =1/2`$ found in section IV.3 (which is related to the order of the perturbation $`p=2`$ in the replica analysis in section V.1). Our primary interest here is to clarify whether these apparently different perturbations lead indeed to the same universal scaling properties as anticipated by the analytical arguments based on the replica-symmetry breaking ansatz.

1. Potential change

The Hamiltonian is given as,

$$E_A[V,u_A]=\underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}V(u_A(z),z)E_A[V^{},u_B]=\underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}V^{}(u_B(z),z)$$
(118)
The temperature is set to zero $`T=0`$. First we generate a random potential $`V(u,z)`$ with random numbers drawn from a uniform distribution between $`1`$ and $`1`$. This is the potential for replica A. In order to construct the perturbed random potential for replica B, we draw another independent random number $`U(u,z)`$ from the same distribution and define,

$$V^{}(u,z)=\frac{V(u,z)+\delta U(u,z)}{\sqrt{1+\delta ^2}}$$
(119)
where $`\delta `$ is the strength of the perturbation. We have used $`T=0`$ transfer matrix method and examined the ground states for different strengths of the perturbation $`\delta =0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,0.8,1.0,1.2`$.
2. Random Tilt Field

The Hamiltonian is given by,

$`E_A[V,u_A,h_A=0]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}}V(u_A(z),z)`$
$`E_B[V,u_B,h_B]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\left(V(u_B(z),z)\right)\delta {\displaystyle \underset{z=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}h_B(z)(u_B(z+1)u_B(z))\}.`$ (120)
The temperature is set to zero $`T=0`$. The two replicas have the same random potential $`V(u,z)`$. The difference is that replica B is subjected to a random tilt field $`h_B(z)`$ which for each $`z`$ takes a different random value which is drawn from a uniform distribution between $`1`$ and $`1`$. We have used $`T=0`$ transfer matrix method to examine the ground states with different random tilt intensities $`\delta =0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5`$ for each realization of random potential.
3. Temperature-shift

In the case of temperature perturbation, the Hamiltonian of A and B replicas are exactly the same,

$$E_B[V,u_A]=\underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}V(u_A(z),z)E_B[V,u_B]=\underset{z=1}{\overset{L}{}}V(u_B(z),z)$$
(121)
We have used the finite temperature version of the transfer matrix method. The temperature of replica A is set to $`T_A=0.1`$. The temperature of replica B is varied as $`T_B=T_A+\delta T`$ with different temperature shifts $`\delta T=0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5,0.6,1.2`$.

#### VII.4.1 Transverse Jumps

Let us first examine the mean-squared transverse displacement of the end point $`B_2(L)`$ due to this class of perturbations. By substituting $`\alpha =1/2`$ in (33) we see that $`B_2(L)`$ is expected to grow with increasing size $`L`$ as $`L^{1+(1/2)=3/2}`$ in the weakly perturbed regime. In the strongly perturbed regime, it should grow as $`L^{4/3}`$ , as discussed in section IV.4.2, which is slightly slower than the growth in the weakly perturbed regime. The difference between exponents is of only $`1/6`$. The crossover between both regimes is expected to take place at the overlap length $`L_cL_0\delta ^6`$ as in (23),(31),(26) with $`\delta `$ being the strength of the perturbation.

In Fig. 8 -Fig. 10 the data for $`B_2(L)`$ corresponding to the three perturbations are shown together with their scaling plots. In the scaling plots we have chosen an adequate numerical prefactor $`c`$ in $`L_c(\delta )=(c\delta )^6`$ in order that the master curves corresponding to the three perturbations lay on the same curve. The resultant master-curves become indistinguishable: the expected crossover behavior between weak and strong perturbation regimes is indeed the same for the three kinds of apparently different looking perturbations.

#### VII.4.2 De-correlation of fluctuations of free-energies and ground state energies

In Fig. 11-13, the correlation of the correlation of the ground-state energies or free-energies of the perturbed and unperturbed systems are shown together with its scaling plot. In the scaling plots we have used the same numerical prefactor $`c`$ in $`L_c(\delta )=(c\delta )^6`$ used in the scaling plot of $`B_2(L)`$. As one can see, the master curves for the three perturbations merge. The initial part of the master curve fits nicely into the expected form (46) using $`\alpha =1/2`$, $`C_L(F)=1/(1+A(L/L_c(h))^{2(11/3)})`$ with $`A1.5`$. One can see that the decay is faster for $`L/L_c(h)1`$. To sum up, the expected crossover behavior from weakly perturbed regime and strongly perturbed regime is indeed the same for the three kinds of apparently different perturbations.

## VIII Conclusion

In this work we have studied the sensitivity of the glassy phase of DPRM against various types of thermal and non-thermal perturbations. For the first time, we have obtained very coherent results which strongly support the picture anticipated by the phenomenological scaling arguments. As we increase the length scale $`L`$ at which observations are made, there is a crossover from the weakly perturbed regime dominated by rare events (i.e. jumps between neighboring free-energy valleys) $`LL_c(\delta )`$ to the strongly perturbed regime where these events become typical $`LL_c(\delta )`$. This means that perturbations become strong at large length scales $`L/L_c(\delta )\mathrm{}`$ such that the configuration can easily jump from one valley to another, i.e. it becomes “chaotic” in the sense that the visited landscape is totally different from that before.

In replica space we proposed a new definition of chaos (5) in terms of the global partition function (A$`+`$B) rather than the correlation function itself. There is chaos if in the adequate limits the partition function factorizes, so that we have two non-interacting systems. The decorrelation of systems A and B when introducing a perturbation can be understood as a concrete example of explicit replica symmetry breaking as proposed by Parisi and Virasoro PV89 . Concerning the mapping to the Sinai model, it means that the free-energy landscape of the perturbed DPRM cannot be described anymore by a single Sinai potential. Instead, RSB requires the coexistence of statistically independent Sinai potentials.

The key point in our DPRM case is the fact that the RS bound state of the quantum problem is marginally stable with respect to RSB as noticed by Parisi P90 . Infinitesimally weak perturbations $`\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ induce small replica symmetry breaking terms and induce a symmetry breaking transition from a RS to a RSB state which takes place in the $`n/n^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })0`$ limit for any small but non-zero strength of the perturbation. It turns out that we can read off the overlap length $`L_c(\delta )`$ from $`n^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. Within the replica space, the perturbations are naturally classified according to their order of perturbation $`p`$ and the symmetries which are left conserved. For each class we have numerically verified that, indeed, there are universal scaling functions of correlation functions in terms of $`L/L_c(\delta )`$ describing the crossover from the weakly to strongly perturbed regimes. It is notable that the decay of the free-energy fluctuation $`C_F(L)`$ is very slow in all cases we studied. It will not be surprising that one cannot have an impression of “chaos” by only making observations within some limited length scales.

In mean-field models, RSB is always associated with the existence of many pure states MFT , which is not the case in DPRM in a strict sense. In the DPRM, the mapping to Quantum Mechanics is always possible for an arbitrarily large number of dimensions of the transverse space (usually denoted as $`N`$, being $`N=1`$ in our case) in which the ground state must contain the bosonic symmetry of the Schrödinger operator MP92 . In this sense, RSB has to be weak in the DPRM problemM90 ; P90 , i.e. it is a latent feature which only manifests under certain circumstances. In the present $`1+1`$ model the existence of a ’hidden’ RSB excited state with vanishingly small gap with respect to the RS ground state in the $`n0`$ limit is extremely important. Loosely speaking, the situation is not very far from having many pure states. In a really stable RS phase like (like ferromagnetic phases), this phenomena cannot happen. It is tempting to speculate that some lessons obtained in the present $`1+1`$ dimensional DPRM case may turn out to be more general.

In the present paper, the temperature-chaos is confirmed. Thus the present model serves as a suitable testing ground to examine the possible connection between the temperature-chaos and the restart of aging (rejuvenation) observed experimentally JVHBN ; sg-experiment-review ; uppsala-reentrantsg ; saclay-reentrantsg . Experimentally, almost complete restart of aging or relaxation take place only by slight temperature-changes. Whether this restart of aging can be associated with the temperature-chaos remains an interesting open question. Interestingly enough, recent experiments uppsala-reentrantsg ; saclay-reentrantsg  suggest rejuvenation (chaos) effect in random ferromagnetic systems. A candidate to account for the mechanism of the phenomena may be the temperature-chaos of pinned domain walls of the ferromagnets, which is directly related to the present study.

Another surprise revealed by the temperature-cycling experiments is that initial aging is resumed when the temperature is cycled back to the initial temperature, giving rise to the so called memory effect. It appears contradictory to the temperature chaos effect at first sight. Recently a coarsening model under cycling of target equilibrium states was studied YLB00 . There a hidden dynamical memory by ghost domains was found and a scenario was proposed to explain the intriguing coexistence of the rejuvenation and memory effect. In the present context of pinned elastic manifold rejuvenation and memory can be easily explained by considering Fourier components of the temporal configuration. When the temperature is shifted, Fourier components at wave length larger than the overlap length will be subjected to rejuvenation. At time $`t`$ after the temperature-shift, Fourier components at wave length shorter than $`L(t)`$ will be adopted to the new temperature. Here $`L(t)`$ is a dynamical length scale over which the system can be equilibrated within a given time $`t`$. However, Fourier components of even larger wavelength $`>L(t)`$ remain the same as before the temperature-shift. Thus dynamical memory exists at the coarse-grained level of $`L(t)`$.

Recalling that relaxational dynamics is extremely slow in glassy systems because of the dominance of the activated processes, one has to consider seriously how large time scale is needed to go beyond the overlap length. If it is too large, even experimental time scales (typically $`10^{14}10^{17}`$ $`\tau _0`$ where $`\tau _010^{13}`$ (sec)) may not be sufficient and one must look for other mechanisms JP ; BDHV01 ; BB02  to explain the rejuvenation phenomena observed experimentally. Previous numerical studies of the relaxational dynamics of the present DPRM model Y98  implies that the needed time lies within the time window of experiments and numerical simulations for some realistic parameters. More work in this direction would certainly be interesting.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Service de Physique de l’État Condensé, CEA Saclay for financial support and kind hospitality where this work was started. M. S. acknowledges the MEC of the Spanish government for grant AP98-36523875. We especially thank M. Mézard, J. P. Bouchaud and F. Ritort for kind suggestions and many useful discussions.