text:
# Spin glass transition in a magnetic field: a renormalization group study

## I INTRODUCTION

Spin glasses are specially interesting disordered magnetic systems, with competing interactions which generate frustration.1-4 Concepts and techniques developed in the study of these complex systems have had impact in a variety of other subjects, like combinatorial optimization, neural networks, prebiotic evolution and protein folding.2,5 Here we concentrate on the simplest spin glass model, that is the Ising spin glass with a Gaussian distribution of interactions in a uniform magnetic field. Despite the enormous amount of work dedicated over the past twenty years, to the study of spin glasses, no consensus has yet been reached on the most fundamental properties of these systems, namely the nature and complexity of the glassy phase and the existence of a transition in a nonzero magnetic field.

In their seminal paper Edwards and Anderson6 (EA) introduced a lattice model for the spin glass, with short-range interactions, and used a replica method to perform the average over quenched disorder. Two different pictures have since then been proposed for the spin glass. One is the mean-field theory for the spin glasses, provided by the Parisi7 solution for the infinite-range, Sherrington-Kirkpatrick (SK) model,8 which predicts a glassy phase described by an infinite number of pure states organized in an ultrametric structure, and a phase transition occurring in a magnetic field. The alternative is the ”droplet” model,9-11 which claims that the real, short-range spin systems behave quite differently, the glassy phase being described by only two pure states, related by a global inversion of the spins, and no phase transition occurring in a magnetic field. The first picture results from replica symmetry breaking, while in the second picture there is no replica symmetry breaking. The spin glass transition in a field, found by de Almeida and Thouless in the SK model,12 occurs along a line in the field-temperature plane, the AT-line, which marks the instability of the replica-symmetric solution against replica symmetry breaking. In the mean-field theory, it represents a line of second-order transitions. Via the replica method the order parameter is represented by a field $`Q_{\alpha \beta }`$, (where $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n`$ is a replica label), which has $`n(n1)/2`$ independent components (since $`Q_{\alpha \alpha }0`$, $`Q_{\alpha \beta }Q_{\beta \alpha }`$). Linear combinations of these components define three different sets of modes: the replicon, the anomalous and the longitudinal.13 In zero-field all the modes become critical at the transition temperature, while in a finite-field only the replicon modes become critical at the AT-line.

The existence, or not, of a spin glass transition in a field, is a crucial issue in the characterization of the spin glass. It has been disputed both from the theoretical as well as the experimental side.14,15 Extensive numerical simulations16 have also been carried out to clarify the situation, but have neither been conclusive. A fundamental step towards the clarification of the controversy, and therefore the understanding of the spin glass, lies in the investigation of how the fluctuations, associated to the finite-range interactions, will modify the mean-field picture, and in particular the AT-transition. Green, Moore and Bray17 made a one-loop perturbation calculation of the AT-line in a magnetic field, however considering the effect of the field only in the masses, the couplings remaining the same as in zero-field. It becomes then most important to study the problem of the spin glass in a field by a powerful analytical method, such as the renormalization group (RG), the aim being to find a fixed-point that controls the spin glass transition in a non-zero field. The spin glass transition in zero-field was already studied within the RG by Harris et al.18 Bray and Roberts19 considered the case of non-zero field and carried out a RG study, in which they retained only the replicon modes to calculate the critical behavior at the AT-line. They found no physical fixed-point in a field.

In this paper we study the spin glass transition in a field, presenting the complete set of RG equations for an Ising spin glass in a uniform magnetic field, which contains the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal modes, and explicit dependence on the number of replicas $`n`$. This allow us to discuss, in a common framework, the transitions in zero and non-zero field, and the crossover region around the zero-field critical point, thus investigating the role that a small magnetic field plays in the transition. We keep the replica number $`n`$ finite to discuss the limit $`n0`$ in the calculation, which is a delicate and important matter when the anomalous and longitudinal modes are considered. Here we analyze the case where the limit $`n0`$ corresponds to a theory with a symmetry that involves equality between the anomalous and longitudinal masses, as it occurs in the spin glass mean field theory. By contrast, the case where there may be singularities in the limit $`n0`$, which may lead to the breaking up of the equality between the anomalous and longitudinal masses, will be considered in a separate publication.20 The main purpose of our work is then to search for the possible existence of a fixed-point associated to the spin glass transition in a field, within the complete set of RG equations. To avoid the complexity of the glassy phase, we approach the transition from the high-temperature, replica-symmetric phase, like Bray and Roberts.19

In a previous publication,21 we presented the derivation of the replica field theory, relevant to the study of the spin glass transition of short-range models in a field. We argued that for studying this transition around the upper critical dimension $`d=6`$, it is necessary to use the generic theory, with all the three bare masses and the eight cubic couplings involving the replica fields, which correspond to all the possible invariants of the replica symmetric Lagrangian. It is however more convenient to work directly with a field theory defined in terms of the eigenfields, which corresponds to a block-diagonalization of the mass operator into the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal modes, and we introduced then the appropriate representation of the cubic interaction. The mass operator and the cubic couplings for the eigenfields, are in fact simply obtained by performing a formal decomposition of the replica fields into the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal fields, and use the generic properties of the fields. However, in order to do a perturbation calculation one still has to deal with the problem of having non-diagonal free propagators. Such a difficuly was overcome in Ref. 21, by introducing a particular non-orthogonal basis and its biorthogonal counterpart, in which a set of vertices were computed, the perturbation computation being alliviated through selection rules. In this work we present a different approach, in which we introduce projection operators into the non-diagonal propagators, the projectors being simply derived from the generic properties of the fields. This method presents a generalization, for the complete set of modes, of the method used by Bray and Roberts.19 We have then a field theory for the spin glass that works directly with the longitudinal, anomalous and replicon fields, and allows to perform a standard perturbation expansion. An alternative formulation of the spin glass field theory can be obtained using Replica Fourier Transform methods, which turn out particularly efficient in the study of the replica symmetry broken phase.22

The outline of the paper is as follows. In Sec. II we present the cubic field theory written in terms of the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal fields. In Sec. III we derive the mean-field results. In Sec. IV we present the renormalization group equations, calculated to lowest order in $`\epsilon =6d`$ (where $`d`$ is the spatial dimension), and discuss the spin glass transitions in zero and non-zero field. Sec.V contains the conclusions of our work.

## II CUBIC FIELD THEORY

We consider a short-range Ising spin glass in a uniform magnetic field $`H`$, described by the Edwards-Anderson model,

$$=\underset{(ij)}{}J_{ij}S_iS_jH\underset{i}{}S_i$$
(1)
for $`N`$ spins, $`S_i=\pm 1`$, located on a regular $`d`$-dimensional lattice, where the bonds $`J_{ij}`$, which couple nearest-neighbor spins only, are independent random variables with a Gaussian distribution, characterized by zero mean and variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. The summations are over pairs $`(ij)`$ of distinct sites on the lattice and over the lattice sites $`i`$. The replica method allows to calculate the average of the free energy over the quenched disorder, in terms of the average of $`n`$ replicas of the partition function $`\overline{Z^n}`$, with $`n`$ positive integer, which provides the spin glass behavior in the analytically continued limit $`n0`$. This procedure transforms the originally disordered system into a uniform one, described by an effective Hamiltonian for the replica spins $`S_i^\alpha `$ , $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n`$. A field theoretical continuum representation of the spin glass lattice model can be built using a standard Hubbard-Stratonovich transformation, which leads to the averaged replicated partition function, expressed as an integral over replica fields $`Q_i^{\alpha \beta }`$.21 The fields $`Q_i^{\alpha \beta }`$ are defined on a $`n(n1)/2`$-dimensional replica space, of the pairs $`(\alpha \beta )`$ of distinct replicas.

In order to construct a perturbation expansion around the mean-field solution, which corresponds to the infinite range or infinite dimensional (i.e. spin coordination number $`z\mathrm{}`$) model, one separates the field $`Q_i^{\alpha \beta }`$ into

$$Q_i^{\alpha \beta }=Q^{\alpha \beta }+\varphi _i^{\alpha \beta }$$
(2)
where $`Q^{\alpha \beta }`$ represents the uniform, mean-field value of the order parameter, and $`\varphi _i^{\alpha \beta }`$ are the fluctuations around it. In addition, since we approach the transition from the high-temperature phase, one can assume a replica symmetric mean-field solution

$$Q^{\alpha \beta }=Q.$$
(3)
The partition function then takes the form

$$\overline{Z^n}𝒟\varphi \mathrm{exp}\left(^{(1)}^{(2)}^{(3)}\mathrm{}\right)$$
(4)
where, after Fourier transform into momenta space, one has, for the contributions up to cubic order,

$`^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}(Q\mathrm{\Theta }^1S^\alpha S^\beta )\varphi _{𝐩=0}^{\alpha \beta }`$ (5)
$`^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )(\gamma \delta )}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(𝐩)\varphi _𝐩^{\gamma \delta }`$ (6)
$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )(\gamma \delta )(\mu \nu )}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3}{}^{}}W_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\mu \nu }\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\gamma \delta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\mu \nu }`$ (7)
the prime in the sum in Eq. (7) indicating constraint to momentum conservation, $`𝐩_1+𝐩_2+𝐩_3=0`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Theta }^1=(k_BT/\mathrm{\Delta })^2/z`$, where the coordination number is $`z=2d`$, essentially represents the temperature squared. The average $`\mathrm{}`$ is defined with the Boltzmann weight, $`\mathrm{exp}\left(_{(\alpha \beta )}QS^\alpha S^\beta +h_\alpha S^\alpha \right)`$, where $`h=H/k_BT`$. The masses $`M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }`$ and the couplings $`W_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\mu \nu }`$ are expressed in terms of spin correlations. The sum in the first Brillouin zone are confined to the range $`0<\left|𝐩\right|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, with cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }1`$, and $`M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(𝐩)`$ is expanded for $`𝐩\mathrm{𝟏}`$, keeping as usual only the terms up to second order. Then, an appropriate rescaling of the fields $`(\varphi (z\mathrm{\Theta })^{1/2}\varphi )`$, with a corresponding rescaling of the masses and the couplings, allows to write the mass operator in a standard form, i.e. with the coefficient of the momentum equal to unity,

$`M_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }(𝐩)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐩^2\delta _{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{Kr}+z[\delta _{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^{Kr}`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }(S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta )],`$
the Kronecker-delta being defined in the space of replica pairs. For the interaction operator one has,

$`W_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta ,\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`(z\mathrm{\Theta })^{3/2}[S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu `$ (9)
$``$ $`S^\gamma S^\delta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\mu S^\nu S^\mu S^\nu S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta `$
$`+2S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu ].`$
The expansion in the fluctuations corresponds to an expansion in $`1/z`$.

Replica symmetry allows three distinct components for the mass, Eq. (8), and eight distinct components for the cubic interaction, Eq. (9). Hence,

$`^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\{(𝐩^2+M_1){\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }+M_2{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta \gamma )}{}}(\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \gamma }+\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\beta \gamma })`$ (10)
$`+M_3{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta \gamma \delta )}{}}\varphi _𝐩^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _𝐩^{\gamma \delta }\}`$
and

$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3}{}^{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}W_1{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\beta \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\gamma \alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}W_2{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\alpha \beta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_3{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\beta \gamma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}W_4{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\gamma \delta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_5{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\beta \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\gamma \delta }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}W_6{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\alpha \delta }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_7{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta ,\mu )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\alpha \gamma }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\delta \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}W_8{\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta ,\mu ,\nu )}{}}\varphi _{𝐩_1}^{\alpha \beta }\varphi _{𝐩_2}^{\gamma \delta }\varphi _{𝐩_3}^{\mu \nu }\},`$
the sums in Eqs. (10)-(11) being restricted to distinct replicas. One can rewrite $`^{(2)}`$ and $`^{(3)}`$ in terms of sums over unrestricted replicas, for which we obtain forms similar to those, with new masses and new couplings, defined as linear combinations of $`M_i`$ and $`W_i`$.21 From a symmetry point of view, Eqs. (10)-(11) contain all the possible quadratic and cubic invariants of the symmetry group of the system, which corresponds to invariance of the Lagrangian under any permutation of the $`n`$ replicas.

We now wish to write the quadratic part $`^{(2)}`$ in terms of the mass eigenvalues, which corresponds to a block diagonalization into the longitudinal (L), anomalous (A) and replicon (R) subspaces. Any replica field $`\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }`$ can be decomposed in its projections onto the L, A, R subspaces,

$$\varphi ^{\alpha \beta }=\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^L+\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^A+\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R.$$
(12)
The field projections $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^i`$ can be obtained via the projection operators $`P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^i`$, onto the different subspaces,

$$\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^i=\underset{(\gamma \delta )}{}P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^i\varphi ^{\gamma \delta },i=L,A,R.$$
(13)
The matrix elements of the projection operators are simply derived from the general properties of the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal fields, as shown in the Appendix. The three subspaces are characterized by different symmetries, as follows.

The longitudinal subspace is $`1`$dimensional. The longitudinal eigenvector $`𝐞^L`$ is symmetric under interchange of all replica indices. This implies a replica independent longitudinal field

$$\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^L=\varphi ^L$$
(14)
given by

$$\varphi ^L(𝐩)=a^L(𝐩)e^L$$
(15)
and a replica independent longitudinal projector

$$P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^L=P^L$$
(16)
defined by

$$P^L=e^Le^L,$$
(17)
with $`e^L`$ in Eqs. (15) and (17), representing a component of the replica independent eigenvector, $`e_{\alpha \beta }^L=e^L`$. One finds for the longitudinal projector the explicit form, Eq. (A3),

$$P^L=\frac{2}{n(n1)}.$$
(18)
The longitudinal subspace is hence described by a single scalar field $`\varphi _L`$.

The anomalous subspace is $`(n1)`$dimensional. The anomalous eigenvectors are symmetric under interchange of all but one of the replica indices. This implies that a generic anomalous field can be represented by a one-replica field $`\varphi _\alpha ^A`$, i.e. it can be expressed as,

$$\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^A=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi _\alpha ^A+\varphi _\beta ^A),$$
(19)
with the condition

$$\underset{\alpha }{}\varphi _\alpha ^A=0.$$
(20)
One can write the one-replica field $`\varphi _\alpha ^A`$ in terms of the set of anomalous eigenvectors $`𝐞^{A,\mu }`$, as

$$\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩)=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}a^{A,\mu }(𝐩)e_\alpha ^{A,\mu },$$
(21)
with the normalization $`_\alpha e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }e_\alpha ^{A,\mu ^{}}=\frac{4}{(n2)}\delta _{\mu \mu ^{}}`$. One then defines an anomalous projector operator

$$P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }e_\beta ^{A,\mu },$$
(22)
which has the property

$$\underset{\alpha }{}P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A=0.$$
(23)
The projectors in Eqs. (13) and (22) are simply related by

$$P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^A=\frac{1}{4}\left[P_{\alpha ,\gamma }^A+P_{\alpha ,\delta }^A+P_{\beta ,\gamma }^A+P_{\beta ,\delta }^A\right].$$
(24)
The explicit form of the anomalous projector $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A`$ is given by, Eq. (A8),

$$P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A=\frac{4}{(n2)}\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{n}\right).$$
(25)
The anomalous subspace is then described by the set of fields $`\varphi _\alpha ^A`$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n`$, with the constraint Eq. (20), which leaves $`(n1)`$ independent fields.

The replicon subspace is $`n(n3)/2`$dimensional. The replicon eigenvectors are symmetric under interchange of all but two replica indices. This implies that the replicon fields depend on two replica indices and verify the conditions23

$$\underset{\alpha (\beta )}{}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R=0,\alpha =1,\mathrm{},n.$$
(26)
A replicon field can be written in terms of the set of replicon orthonormal eigenvectors $`𝐞^{R,\nu }`$as

$$\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩)=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}a^{R,\nu }(𝐩)e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }.$$
(27)
The replicon projector is defined by

$$P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }e_{\gamma \delta }^{R,\nu }$$
(28)
and has the property

$$\underset{\alpha (\beta )}{}P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R=0.$$
(29)
The explicit form of the replicon projector is given by, Eq. (A14),

$`P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }+\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\right)\left(\delta _{\alpha \gamma }+\delta _{\alpha \delta }+\delta _{\beta \gamma }+\delta _{\beta \delta }\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n2}}`$ (30)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}}`$
naturally, with $`\alpha \beta `$ and $`\gamma \delta `$. Eq. (30) is equivalent to the replicon projector as introduced by Bray and Roberts.19 The replicon subspace is then described by the set of $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R`$ fields, with the constraints in Eq. (26), which leaves $`n(n1)/2n=n(n3)/2`$ independent fields. The characteristic property of projection operators $`𝐏^2=𝐏`$ is readily observed for the longitudinal, anomalous and replicon projectors in Eqs. (18), (25) and (30).

Introducing the field decomposition in Eq. (12), with the definitions in Eqs. (14) and (19), into Eq. (10), and using repeatedly the conditions in Eqs. (20) and (26), one obtains the quadratic part in the diagonalized form

$`^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\{(𝐩^2+m_L){\displaystyle \frac{n(n1)}{2}}\varphi ^L(𝐩)\varphi ^L(𝐩)`$
$`+\left(𝐩^2+m_A\right){\displaystyle \frac{(n2)}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩)\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩)`$
$`+(𝐩^2+m_R){\displaystyle \underset{(\alpha \beta )}{}}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩)\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩)\}`$
where $`m_L`$, $`m_A`$, $`m_R`$ are the longitudinal, anomalous and replicon mass eigenvalues, which are given by

$`m_L`$ $`=`$ $`M_1+2(n2)M_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n2)(n3)M_3.`$
$`m_A`$ $`=`$ $`M_1+(n4)M_2(n3)M_3`$ (32)
$`m_R`$ $`=`$ $`M_12M_2+M_3.`$
We notice that the anomalous and longitudinal masses are equal in the limit $`n0`$. For later discussion we define the variable

$$\overline{m}_{AL}=\frac{m_Am_L}{n},$$
(33)
which is given by

$$\overline{m}_{AL}=M_2\frac{1}{2}(n3)M_3.$$
(34)
Now, because of Eqs. (20) and (26), the fields $`\varphi _\alpha ^A`$ and $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R`$ are still not independent. One can however construct an expansion in terms of the orthonormal eigenvectors $`𝐞^L`$, $`𝐞^{A,\mu }`$, $`𝐞^{R,\nu }`$. Introducing Eqs. (15), (21) and (27) into Eq. (31), one gets

$`^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩}{}}\{(𝐩^2+m_L)a^L(𝐩)a^L(𝐩)`$
$`+\left(𝐩^2+m_A\right){\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}}a^{A,\mu }(𝐩)a^{A,\mu }(𝐩)`$
$`+(𝐩^2+m_R){\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}}a^{R,\nu }(𝐩)a^{R,\nu }(𝐩)\}`$
and then

$`<`$ $`a^L(𝐩)a^L(𝐩)>=\left(𝐩^2+m_L\right)^1`$
$`<`$ $`a^{A,\mu }(𝐩)a^{A,\mu ^{}}(𝐩)>=\left(𝐩^2+m_A\right)^1\delta _{\mu ,\mu ^{}}`$
$`<`$ $`a^{R,\nu }(𝐩)a^{A,\nu ^{}}(𝐩)>=\left(𝐩^2+m_R\right)^1\delta _{\nu ,\nu ^{}}.`$
Using the expressions for the fields in Eqs. (15), (21), (27), together with Eq. (36), and the definitions in Eqs. (17), (22), (28), one finds the bare propagators

$`<`$ $`\varphi ^L(𝐩)\varphi ^L(𝐩)>=\left(𝐩^2+m_L\right)^1P^L`$
$`<`$ $`\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩)\varphi _\beta ^A(𝐩)>=\left(𝐩^2+m_A\right)^1P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A`$
$`<`$ $`\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩)\varphi _{\gamma \delta }^R(𝐩)>=\left(𝐩^2+m_R\right)^1P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R.`$
The cubic interaction can be written in terms of the longitudinal, anomalous and replicon fields, by following a procedure similar to the one that lead to Eq. (31), that is, introducing the decomposition in Eq. (12), with Eqs. (14) and (19), into Eq. (11) and repeatedly applying the conditions in Eqs. (20) and (26), one obtains

$`^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3}{}^{}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_1{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma }{}}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_1)\varphi _{\beta \gamma }^R(𝐩_2)\varphi _{\gamma \alpha }^R(𝐩_3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}g_2{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_1)\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_2)\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}g_3{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_1)\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_2)\left(\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩_3)+\varphi _\beta ^A(𝐩_3)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_4{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_1)\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_2)\varphi ^L(𝐩_3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_5{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta }{}}\varphi _{\alpha \beta }^R(𝐩_1)\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩_2)\varphi _\beta ^A(𝐩_3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_6{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩_1)\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩_2)\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩_3)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_7{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩_1)\varphi _\alpha ^A(𝐩_2)\varphi ^L(𝐩_3)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}g_8\varphi ^L(𝐩_1)\varphi ^L(𝐩_2)\varphi ^L(𝐩_3)\}`$
with the couplings,

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`W_13W_5+3W_7W_8`$
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`W_26W_3+3W_4+6W_5+4W_612W_7+4W_8`$ (39)
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n8\right)W_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n5\right)W_4\left(n8\right)W_5`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n6\right)W_6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(5n28\right)W_7\left(n5\right)W_8`$
$`g_4`$ $`=`$ $`W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_2+\left(n4\right)W_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n^25n+10\right)W_42\left(n4\right)W_5`$
$`\left(n3\right)W_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n4\right)\left(n7\right)W_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n4\right)\left(n5\right)W_8`$
$`g_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n4)W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n5\right)W_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(2n7\right)W_4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n5\right)\left(n6\right)W_5{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n4\right)W_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n4\right)\left(2n13\right)W_7`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n4\right)\left(n5\right)W_8`$
$`g_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(3n8)W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(n4)W_2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left(n4\right)^2W_3`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left(n3\right)\left(n4\right)W_4{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(n3\right)\left(n4\right)W_5`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(n3\right)\left(n^26n+16\right)W_6{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\left(n3\right)\left(n4\right)\left(n8\right)W_7`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n3\right)\left(n4\right)\left(n5\right)W_8`$
$`g_7`$ $`=`$ $`(n2)[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n4)W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_2+(n3)W_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(n3)(n6)W_4`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(n3\right)\left(n6\right)W_5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left(n3\right)\left(n4\right)W_6`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(n3)(n4)(n12)W_7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(n3)(n4)(n5)W_8]`$
$`g_8`$ $`=`$ $`n(n1)[(n2)W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}W_2+3(n2)W_3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left(n2\right)\left(n3\right)W_4+3\left(n2\right)\left(n3\right)W_5`$
$`+\left(n2\right)\left(n3\right)W_6+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left(n2\right)\left(n3\right)\left(n4\right)W_7`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(n2)(n3)(n4)(n5)W_8].`$
Again, we notice that the couplings $`g_3`$ and $`g_4`$, $`g_6`$ and $`g_7`$, $`g_7`$ and $`g_8/n`$, are equal in the limit $`n0`$. For later discussion we define the variables

$`\overline{g}_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n}}(g_4g_3)`$
$`\overline{g}_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}(g_7g_6)`$ (40)
$`\overline{g}_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n^3}}(g_83ng_7+2ng_6)`$
for which we have

$`\overline{g}_4`$ $`=`$ $`2W_3+(n3)W_44W_52W_62(n6)W_7+(n5)W_8`$
$`\overline{g}_7`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n3)W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(5n16)W_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n3)(n5)W_4`$
$`+(n3)(n5)W_5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n3)(n6)W_6`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n3)(n4)(n11)W_7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n3)(n4)(n5)W_8.`$
$`\overline{g}_8`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}W_1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}W_3+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}(n3)W_4+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(n3)W_5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(n3)W_6`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{8}}(n3)(n4)W_7+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(n3)(n4)(n5)W_8.`$
Hence, we have derived a Lagangean for the spin glass that is directly defined in terms of longitudinal, anomalous and replicon fields, and allows to perform a standard perturbation expansion. In summary, this field theory is defined by the quadratic mass term $`^{(2)}`$ in Eq. (31), the cubic interaction $`^{(3)}`$ in Eq. (38), and the bare propagators in Eq. (37), which involve the longitudinal, anomalous and replicon projectors given in Eqs. (18), (25) and (30), that verify the constraints in Eqs. (23) and (29). This in fact represents a general field theory that contains the spin glass symmetry and also other symmetries as will be discussed.

## III EQUATION OF STATE, BARE MASSES AND BARE COUPLINGS

The replica symmetric mean field value of the order parameter $`Q`$ is determined by the stationary condition $`^{(1)}=0`$, which from Eq. (5), provides the implicit form

$`Q\mathrm{\Theta }^1`$ $`=`$ $`S^\alpha S^\beta `$ (42)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{Tr_{\left\{S^\alpha \right\}}\left[S^\alpha S^\beta \mathrm{exp}\left(_{(\alpha \beta )}QS^\alpha S^\beta +h_\alpha S^\alpha \right)\right]}{Tr_{\left\{S^\alpha \right\}}\mathrm{exp}\left(_{(\alpha \beta )}QS^\alpha S^\beta +h_\alpha S^\alpha \right)}}`$
for the equation of state, $`Q=Q(\mathrm{\Theta },h,n)`$.

¿From Eq. (8) we have the bare masses, (in units of $`z`$),

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }[1\mathrm{\Theta }^1S^\alpha S^\beta ^2]`$
$`M_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }[S^\alpha S^\beta S^\alpha S^\beta ^2]`$ (43)
$`M_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }[S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\alpha S^\beta ^2]`$
and from Eq. (9) we have the bare cubic couplings, (in units of $`z^{3/2}`$),

$`W_1`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[13S^\alpha S^\beta ^2+2S^\alpha S^\beta ^3]`$
$`W_2`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[2S^\alpha S^\beta +2S^\alpha S^\beta ^3]`$ (44)
$`W_3`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[2S^\alpha S^\beta ^2+2S^\alpha S^\beta ^3]`$
$`W_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[2S^\alpha S^\beta ^32S^\alpha S^\beta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta ]`$
$`W_5`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[S^\alpha S^\beta 2S^\alpha S^\beta ^2+2S^\alpha S^\beta ^3`$
$`S^\alpha S^\beta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta ]`$
$`W_6`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[3S^\alpha S^\beta ^2+2S^\alpha S^\beta ^3+S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta ]`$
$`W_7`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[S^\alpha S^\beta ^2+2S^\alpha S^\beta ^3+S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta `$
$`2S^\alpha S^\beta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta ]`$
$`W_8`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Theta }^{3/2}[2S^\alpha S^\beta ^33S^\alpha S^\beta S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta `$
$`+S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu ].`$
The masses and the couplings, respectively in Eqs. (43) and (44), depend on the field $`h`$, and also the temperature $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$, through $`Q`$.

One finds that the spin correlations are given by

$``$ $`S^\alpha S^\beta =\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^2(\sqrt{Q}y+h)}`$
$``$ $`S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta =\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^4(\sqrt{Q}y+h)}`$
$``$ $`S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu =\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^6(\sqrt{Q}y+h)}`$
with the notation

$$\overline{\mathrm{tanh}^k(\mathrm{})}=\frac{𝑑ye^{\frac{1}{2}y^2}\mathrm{tanh}^k(\mathrm{})\mathrm{cosh}^n(\mathrm{})}{𝑑ye^{\frac{1}{2}y^2}\mathrm{cosh}^n(\mathrm{})}.$$

For small magnetic fields $`h`$, hence small $`Q`$, one gets, keeping terms up to order $`Q^3,h^2`$ and $`n`$,

$``$ $`S^\alpha S^\beta =Q+(n2)Q^2+({\displaystyle \frac{17}{3}}5n)Q^3+h^2+\mathrm{}`$
$``$ $`S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta =3Q^22(103n)Q^3+\mathrm{}`$
$``$ $`S^\alpha S^\beta S^\gamma S^\delta S^\mu S^\nu =15Q^3+\mathrm{}`$
Introducing the first of Eq. (46) into the stationary condition Eq. (42), gives

$$0=tQ+(n2)Q^2+\left(\frac{17}{3}5n\right)Q^3+h^2+\mathrm{}$$
(47)
where we defined the temperature variable $`t=\left(\mathrm{\Theta }^11\right)`$.

Eqs. (32), (34), (43) and (46) give for the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal bare masses,

$`m_R`$ $`=`$ $`(1+t)^1\left[t+2(1+t)Q3Q^2+2(103n)Q^3+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`m_A`$ $`=`$ $`(1+t)^1[t+(4n)(1+t)Q3(3n)Q^2`$ (48)
$`+2(3019n)Q^3+\mathrm{}]`$
$`m_L`$ $`=`$ $`(1+t)^1[t+2(2n)(1+t)Q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3(65n)+`$
$`+n(1n)(1+t)^2)Q^2+4(1517n)Q^3+\mathrm{}]`$
and

$`\overline{m}_{AL}`$ $`=`$ $`(1+t)^1[(1+t)Q+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3(n3)+(1n)(1+t)^2)Q^2`$ (49)
$`+(3019n)Q^3+\mathrm{}].`$
Eqs. (39), (41), (44) and (46) give for the bare couplings, up to order $`Q`$,

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[13Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[4Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (50)
$`g_3`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[1+\left(7n\right)Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`g_4`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[1+\left(72n\right)Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`g_5`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n\right)+\left(7{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}n\right)Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`g_6`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}n\right)\left(17{\displaystyle \frac{41}{4}}n\right)Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`g_7`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}(n2)\left[\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(179n\right)Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`g_8`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}n(n1)\left[(2n)+(1715n)Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
and

$`\overline{g}_4`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[4Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$
$`\overline{g}_7`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3n)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(298n\right)Q+\mathrm{}\right]`$ (51)
$`\overline{g}_8`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+t\right)^{3/2}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(93n\right)Q+\mathrm{}\right].`$
In zero magnetic field, $`h=0`$, Eq. (47) has the physical solutions, $`Q0`$:

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`0\mathrm{for}t>0,`$ (52)
$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2n)}}t+\mathrm{}\mathrm{for}t<0.`$
One thus finds a spin glass transition in mean field at $`t_c=0`$. The three masses $`m_R`$, $`m_A`$, $`m_L`$ vanish at the transition point, the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal modes, becoming then simultaneously critical. Above the transition, $`t>0`$,

$$m_R=m_A=m_Lt$$
(53)
and, below the transition, $`t<0`$,

$`m_R`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{(2n)}}t`$
$`m_A`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(2n)}}t`$ (54)
$`m_L`$ $``$ $`t.`$
We have then that, above the transition the three masses are equal, vanishing at $`t_c=0`$, whereas below the transition an anisotropy develops, the replicon mass being zero while the anomalous and longitudinal masses are finite and degenerate in the limit $`n0`$. For the couplings above the transition one has

$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`g_3=g_4={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(4n)}}g_5={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(83n)}}g_6`$ (55)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n2)(n4)}}g_7={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(n1)(n2)}}g_8=1`$
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
and

$`\overline{g}_4`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(3n)}}\overline{g}_7=4\overline{g}_8=1`$ (56)
In zero field and above the transition, where $`Q=0`$, there is indeed only one mass and one coupling, since

$`M_1`$ $`=`$ $`t(1+t)^1,M_2=M_3=0`$
$`W_1`$ $`=`$ $`(1+t)^{3/2},W_i=0,i=2,\mathrm{},8.`$ (57)
In a finite magnetic field, $`h0`$, $`Q`$ is finite, which generates a splitting in the masses and the couplings. A spin glass transition occurs at the AT-line, $`h=h_c(T)`$, where the replicon modes become critical while the anomalous and longitudinal modes remain non-critical. The AT-line is then characterized by the vanishing of the replicon mass

$$m_R=0.$$
(58)
The stationarity condition Eq. (47) together with Eqs. (48) and (58), determine the AT-line,

$$h^2=\frac{1}{6}t^3\frac{1}{4}nt^2.$$
(59)
On the AT-line, $`Qh^{2/3}`$, and

$`m_A`$ $``$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}\right)h^{2/3}`$ (60)
$`m_L`$ $``$ $`\left(1n\right)h^{2/3}.`$
Likewise one can obtain the couplings from Eqs. (50)-(51).

The expressions derived above for the bare masses and bare couplings provide the initial conditions for the renormalization group study.

## IV RENORMALIZATION GROUP

We obtain the renormalization group equations by standard methods of integration of degrees of freedom over an infinitesimal momentum shell, $`e^{dl}\mathrm{\Lambda }<\left|𝐩\right|<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, at the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.24 This is the same renormalization scheme as used in Ref. 19. The masses are determined by the zero momentum limit of the two-point vertex functions, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i^{(2)}(𝐩)`$, $`i=R,A,L`$. The leading, one-loop, order approximation for the two-point vertex functions corresponds to the ”bubble” diagrams. The vertices are determined by the three-point vertex functions, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_j^{(3)}(𝐩_1,𝐩_2,𝐩_3)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},8`$, calculated at zero momenta, with the definition: $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RRR,1}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RRR,2}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_3^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RRA}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_4^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RRL}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_5^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{RAA}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_6^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AAA}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_7^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{AAL}`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_8^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{LLL}`$. The leading, one-loop, order approximation for the three-point vertex functions corresponds to the ”triangle” diagrams.

The renormalization equations are given, to lowest order in $`\epsilon =6d`$, by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_R}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta _R)m_R[g_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n^48n^3+19n^24n16)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}`$
$`+g_1g_2{\displaystyle \frac{2(3n^215n+16)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}+g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n^39n^2+26n22)}{2(n1)(n2)^2}}]I_{RR}`$
$`g_3^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8(n1)(n4)}{n(n2)^2}}\right]I_{RA}g_4^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n(n1)}}\right]I_{RL}`$
$`g_5^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16}{(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_A}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta _A)m_Ag_3^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)(n4)}{(n2)^2}}\right]I_{RR}`$
$`g_5^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16n(n3)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}\right]I_{RA}g_6^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AA}`$
$`g_7^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n1)(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_L}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta _L)m_Lg_4^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)}{(n1)}}\right]I_{RR}`$
$`g_7^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16}{n(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AA}g_8^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n^3(n1)^3}}\right]I_{LL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _R)g_1+[g_1^3{\displaystyle \frac{(n^510n^4+33n^38n^2104n+112)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}`$
$`+g_1^2g_2{\displaystyle \frac{3(3n^327n^2+64n48)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}+g_1g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{3(n^3+8n^217n+12)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}`$
$`g_2^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(n2)^3}}]I_{RRR}+[g_2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{12}{(n2)^3}}`$
$`+g_1g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{12(n^39n^2+20n16)}{n(n2)^3}}]I_{RRA}+g_1g_4^2[{\displaystyle \frac{24}{n(n1)}}]I_{RRL}`$
$`g_3^2g_5\left[{\displaystyle \frac{48}{(n2)^3}}\right]I_{RAA}+g_5^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{64}{(n2)^3}}\right]I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _R)g_2[g_1^3{\displaystyle \frac{24n}{(n2)^2}}`$
$`+g_1^2g_2{\displaystyle \frac{6(n^35n^28n+16)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}g_1g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{3(6n^238n+40)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}`$
$`g_2^3{\displaystyle \frac{(n^311n^2+38n34)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}]I_{RRR}+[g_1g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{96}{(n2)^2}}`$
$`+g_2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{24(n^26n+4)}{n(n2)^2}}]I_{RRA}+g_2g_4^2[{\displaystyle \frac{24}{n(n1)}}]I_{RRL}`$
$`+g_3^2g_5\left[{\displaystyle \frac{96}{(n2)^2}}\right]I_{RAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 2\eta _R\eta _A)g_3`$
$`+[g_1^2g_3{\displaystyle \frac{(n^512n^4+47n^344n^248n+64)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}`$
$`+g_2^2g_3{\displaystyle \frac{(n^412n^3+50n^281n+44)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}`$
$`+g_1g_2g_3{\displaystyle \frac{(14n^3102n^2+208n128)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}]I_{RRR}`$
$`[g_1g_3g_5{\displaystyle \frac{8n(n^29n+12)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}g_2g_3g_5{\displaystyle \frac{8n(n^26n+7)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}`$
$`g_3^3{\displaystyle \frac{4(2n315n^2+28n16)}{n(n2)^3}}]I_{RRA}+g_3g_4^2[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n(n.1)}}]I_{RRL}`$
$`+\left[g_3g_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{32n}{(n2)^3}}+g_3^2g_6{\displaystyle \frac{16(n^27n+8)}{n(n2)^3}}\right]I_{RAA}`$
$`+g_3g_4g_7\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n1)(n2)}}\right]I_{RAL}+g_5^2g_6\left[{\displaystyle \frac{64}{(n2)^3}}\right]I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_4}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 2\eta _R\eta _L)g_4+[g_1^2g_4{\displaystyle \frac{(2n^416n^3+38n^28n32)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}`$
$`+g_2^2g_4{\displaystyle \frac{(n^39n^2+26n22)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}+g_1g_2g_4{\displaystyle \frac{(12n^260n+64)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}]I_{RRR}`$
$`+g_3^2g_4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8(n^25n+4)}{n(n2)^2}}\right]I_{RRA}+g_4^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n(n1)}}\right]I_{RRL}`$
$`+g_3^2g_7\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16(n^25n+4)}{n(n2)^3}}\right]I_{RAA}+g_4^2g_8\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n^2(n1)^2}}\right]I_{RLL}`$
$`+g_5^2g_7\left[{\displaystyle \frac{64}{(n2)^3}}\right]I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon \eta _R2\eta _A)g_5[g_1g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n^313n^2+48n48)}{(n2)^3}}`$
$`g_2g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{n^310n^2+31n28}{(n2)^3}}]I_{RRR}`$
$`+[g_1g_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{4(n^48n^3+19n^24n16)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}+g_2g_5^2{\displaystyle \frac{2(6n^230n+32)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}`$
$`+g_3^2g_5{\displaystyle \frac{8(n^25n+4)}{(n2)^3}}]I_{RRA}+[g_5^3{\displaystyle \frac{16(n^23n+4)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}`$
$`+g_3g_5g_6{\displaystyle \frac{32(n^25n+4)}{n(n2)^3}}]I_{RAA}+g_4g_5g_7[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n1)(n2)}}]I_{RAL}`$
$`g_5g_6^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{64}{n(n2)^3}}\right]I_{AAA}+g_5g_7^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n1)(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AAL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_6}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _A)g_6+g_3^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(n^414n^3+69n^2140n+96)}{(n2)^3}}\right]I_{RRR}`$
$`+g_3g_5^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{12n(n3)(n4)}{(n2)^3}}\right]I_{RRA}g_5^2g_6\left[{\displaystyle \frac{48n(n3)}{(n1)(n2)^3}}\right]I_{RAA}`$
$`+g_6^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{64(n3)}{n(n2)^3}}\right]I_{AAA}+g_6g_7^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{96}{n(n1)(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AAL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_7}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 2\eta _A\eta _L)g_7+g_3^2g_4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(n^27n+12)}{(n2)}}\right]I_{RRR}`$
$`+g_4g_5^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8n(n3)}{(n1)(n2)}}\right]I_{RRA}+g_5^2g_7\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16n(n3)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}\right]I_{RAA}`$
$`+g_6^2g_7\left[{\displaystyle \frac{64}{n(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AAA}+g_7^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n1)(n2)^2}}\right]I_{AAL}`$
$`+g_7^2g_8\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16}{n^2(n1)^2(n2)}}\right]I_{ALL}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_8}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _L)g_8+g_4^3\left[4n(n3)\right]I_{RRR}`$
$`+g_7^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{64(n1)}{(n2)^3}}\right]I_{AAA}+g_8^3\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{n^3(n1)^3}}\right]I_{LLL}`$
with

$`\eta _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\{[g_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n^48n^3+19n^24n16)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}`$
$`+g_1g_2{\displaystyle \frac{2(3n^215n+16)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}+g_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{(n^39n^2+26n22)}{2(n1)(n2)^2}}]T_{RR}`$
$`+g_3^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4(n1)(n4)}{n(n2)^2}}\right](T_{RA}+T_{AR})`$
$`+g_4^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n(n1)}}\right](T_{RL}+T_{LR})+g_5^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16}{(n2)^2}}\right]T_{AA}\}`$
$`\eta _A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\{g_3^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)(n4)}{(n2)^2}}\right]T_{RR}`$
$`+g_5^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8n(n3)}{(n1)(n2)^2}}\right](T_{RA}+T_{AR})+g_6^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{32}{n(n2)^2}}\right]T_{AA}`$
$`+g_7^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16}{n(n1)(n2)^2}}\right](T_{AL}+T_{LA})\}`$
$`\eta _L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\{g_4^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)}{(n1)}}\right]T_{RR}+g_7^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{16}{n(n2)^2}}\right]T_{AA}`$
$`+g_8^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4}{n^3(n1)^3}}\right]T_{LL}\}`$
defining

$$I_{ij}=\frac{1}{(1+m_i)(1+m_j)},$$

$$I_{ijk}=\frac{1}{(1+m_i)(1+m_j)(1+m_k)},$$

$$T_{ij}=\frac{1+3m_j}{(1+m_i)(1+m_j)^3}.$$

In Eqs. (61)-(74) the usual geometrical factor $`K_d=2/(4\pi )^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(d/2)`$ is absorbed in the couplings, i.e.,  $`K_d^{1/2}g_ig_i`$. The one-loop perturbation equations for the two-point and three-point vertex functions contain $`1/n`$ \- factors, which consequently appear in the renormalization equations. Those factors, which come always associated with terms involving the anomalous and longitudinal modes, could in principle, lead to divergences in the limit $`n0`$. The spin glass symmetry does however prevent this problem, as will be seen.

As mentioned before, the field theory considered, and hence the renormalization equations just derived, are quite general, containing different symmetries, which depend on $`n`$. The spin glass is obtained in the limit $`n0`$. Here we assume that perturbation theory works in a regular way as presented above. The possibility that subdominant dangerous terms may take over (with as a consequence a breakdown of the symmetry involved here) will be considered separately.20 With that assumption there are now two important features. First, at the mean-field level, i.e. in 0-loop order, the spin glass is characterized by a degeneracy in the masses and the couplings, i.e. $`m_A`$ and $`m_L`$, $`g_3`$ and $`g_4`$, $`g_6`$ and $`g_7`$, $`g_7`$ and $`g_8/n`$, are equal, when $`n0`$; we then defined the variables, $`\overline{m}_{AL}`$, $`\overline{g}_4`$ , $`\overline{g}_7`$ and $`\overline{g}_8`$, in Eqs. (33) and (40), which although incorporating $`1/n`$ \- factors, are in 0-loop order, well defined quantities in terms of the spin correlations functions, when $`n0`$, see Eqs (34) and (41). Secondly, starting with the set of variables $`m_R`$, $`m_A`$ , $`\overline{m}_{AL}`$, $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, $`g_3`$, $`\overline{g}_4`$, $`g_5`$, $`g_6`$ , $`\overline{g}_7`$, $`\overline{g}_8`$, one can built a set of equations for the 1-loop two-point and three-point vertex functions corresponding to those variables (defining $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{AL}=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_A\mathrm{\Gamma }_L)/n`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_4=4(\mathrm{\Gamma }_4\mathrm{\Gamma }_3)/n`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_7=2(\mathrm{\Gamma }_7\mathrm{\Gamma }_6)/n`$, $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_8=(\mathrm{\Gamma }_83n\mathrm{\Gamma }_7+2n\mathrm{\Gamma }_6)/n^3`$), which is free of $`1/n`$ \- factors, and hence is well behaved in the limit $`n0`$. This means that the degeneracy that exists, in the masses and the couplings in 0-loop order, is also present in 1-loop order, and consequently, the renormalization group transformation preserves this symmetry. One can then write the renormalization equations for the new set of variables, and $`n=0`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_R}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta _R)m_R\left[4g_1^28g_1g_2+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}g_2^2\right]I_{RR}`$
$`+\left[10g_3^2+4g_3\overline{g}_4\right]I_{RA}4g_5^2I_{AA}+8g_3^2\overline{m}_{AL}I_{RAA}`$
$$\frac{m_A}{l}=(2\eta _A)m_A6g_3^2I_{RR}+8\left[g_6^2+g_6\overline{g}_7\right]I_{AA}+8g_6^2\overline{m}_{AL}I_{AAA}$$
(76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{m}_{AL}}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta _A)\overline{m}_{AL}\overline{\eta }_{AL}m_A+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\left[g_3^2+2g_3\overline{g}_4\right]I_{RR}`$
$`12g_5^2I_{RA}\left[5g_6^2+16g_6\overline{g}_7+8g_6\overline{g}_8+6\overline{g}_7^2\right]I_{AA}`$
$`8\left[g_6^2+2g_6\overline{g}_7\right]\overline{m}_{AL}I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _R)g_1+\left[14g_1^318g_1^2g_2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}g_1g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_2^3\right]I_{RRR}`$
$`\left[18g_1g_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}g_2g_3^2+12g_1g_3\overline{g}_4\right]I_{RRA}+6g_3^2g_5I_{RAA}8g_5^3I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _R)g_2+\left[24g_1^2g_230g_1g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}}g_2^3\right]I_{RRR}`$
$`+\left[24g_1g_3^236g_2g_3^212g_2g_3\overline{g}_4\right]I_{RRA}+24g_3^2g_5I_{RAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_3}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 2\eta _R\eta _A)g_3+\left[8g_1^2g_3+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}g_2^2g_316g_1g_2g_3\right]I_{RRR}`$
$`\left[10g_3^3+4g_3^2\overline{g}_4\right]I_{RRA}+\left[14g_3^2g_6+8g_3^2\overline{g}_7+4g_3\overline{g}_4g_6\right]I_{RAA}`$
$`8g_5^2g_6I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_4}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 2\eta _R\eta _A)\overline{g}_4+2\overline{\eta }_{AL}g_3+[16g_1^2g_3+8g_1^2\overline{g}_4+{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}g_2^2g_3`$
$`12g_1g_2g_3+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{2}}g_2^2\overline{g}_416g_1g_2\overline{g}_4]I_{RRR}+[48g_1g_3g_528g_2g_3g_5`$
$`2g_3^310g_3^2\overline{g}_44g_3\overline{g}_4]I_{RRA}+[16g_3g_5^2+8g_3g_6^2+44g_3^2\overline{g}_7`$
$`+8g_3\overline{g}_4g_6+32g_3^2\overline{g}_8+16g_3\overline{g}_4\overline{g}_7+2\overline{g}_4^2g_6]I_{RAA}16g_5^2\overline{g}_7I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_5}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon \eta _R2\eta _A)g_5[6g_1g_3^2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}g_2g_3^2]I_{RRR}+[8g_1g_5^2`$
$`+8g_2g_5^24g_3^2g_5]I_{RRA}+[8g_5^3+20g_3g_5g_6+8g_3g_5\overline{g}_7`$
$`+4\overline{g}_4g_5g_6]I_{RAA}[4g_5g_6^2+8g_5g_6\overline{g}_7]I_{AAA}`$
$$\frac{g_6}{l}=\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon 3\eta _A)g_612g_3^3I_{RRR}\left[20g_6^3+24g_6^2\overline{g}_7\right]I_{AAA}$$
(83)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_7}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _A)\overline{g}_7+\overline{\eta }_{AL}g_6+\left[3g_3^36g_3^2\overline{g}_4\right]I_{RRR}+12g_3g_5^2I_{RRA}`$
$`12g_5^2g_6I_{RAA}\left[4g_6^3+36g_6^2\overline{g}_7+28g_6\overline{g}_7^2+16g_6^2\overline{g}_8\right]I_{AAA}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{g}_8}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _A)\overline{g}_8+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\overline{\eta }_{AL}\overline{g}_7+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\left[g_3^3+3g_3^2\overline{g}_43g_3\overline{g}_4^2\right]I_{RRR}`$
$`+9[g_3g_5^2+\overline{g}_4g_5^2]I_{RRA}+18[g_5^2g_6g_5^2\overline{g}_7]I_{RAA}[12g_6^2\overline{g}_7`$
$`+g_6^3+42g_6\overline{g}_7^2+14\overline{g}_7^3+12g_6^2\overline{g}_8+48g_6\overline{g}_7\overline{g}_8]I_{AAA}`$
with

$`\eta _R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\{[4g_1^28g_1g_2+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}g_2^2]T_{RR}`$
$`[5g_3^2+2g_3\overline{g}_4](T_{RA}+T_{AR})+4g_5^2T_{AA}\}`$
$$\eta _A=\frac{1}{3}\left\{6g_3^2T_{RR}8\left[g_6^2+g_6\overline{g}_7\right]T_{AA}\right\}$$
(87)
$`\overline{\eta }_{AL}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[g_3^2+2g_3\overline{g}_4\right]T_{RR}+2g_5^2(T_{RA}+T_{AR})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left[5g_6^2+16g_6\overline{g}_7+8g_6\overline{g}_8+6\overline{g}_7^2\right]T_{AA}.`$
We remark that the theory with $`n`$ finite, allows the three masses, as well as the eight couplings $`g_j`$, to be different, while the theory with $`n=0`$ , imposes $`m_A=m_L`$ and $`g_3=g_4`$, $`g_6=g_7=g_8/n`$. The two sets of renormalization equations, Eqs (61)-(74) and Eqs. (75)-(88), imply two different procedures, i.e. the first corresponds to keeping $`n`$ finite along the renormalization iteration, and only at the end set it zero, while the second corresponds to imposing $`n=0`$ all the way along the renormalization iteration. The two procedures may lead to different results, as $`n`$ influences the flow equations. When using the first procedure to study the spin glass one has to carefully take into account the symmetry of the problem, in order to obtain the relevant results. The latter procedure naturally enforces the spin glass symmetry. We will discuss the cases of zero and small magnetic field using the two procedures, for illustration. Let us then look for the fixed-points (f.p.) of the renormalization group equations.

In zero magnetic field, $`h=0`$, and $`t>0`$, the three masses, $`m_i`$, $`i=R,A,L`$, are equal, see Eq. (53), and the eight couplings, $`g_j,`$ $`j=1,\mathrm{},8`$ are simply related, as in Eqs. (55)-(56). So, if one imposes this symmetry

$$m_R=m_A=m_L=m$$
(89)
$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`g_3=g_4={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n4)}}g_5={\displaystyle \frac{4}{(83n)}}g_6`$ (90)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n2)(n4)}}g_7={\displaystyle \frac{1}{n(n1)(n2)}}g_8=g`$
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
on the renormalization equations, Eqs. (61)-(74), they reduce to

$$\frac{m}{l}=(2\eta )m+\left(2n\right)g^2\frac{1}{(1+m)^2}$$
(91)
$$\frac{g}{l}=\frac{1}{2}(\epsilon 3\eta )g\left(2n\right)g^3\frac{1}{(1+m)^3}$$
(92)
with

$$\eta =\frac{1}{3}(2n)g^2\frac{1+3m}{(1+m)^4}.$$
(93)
Equivalently, if one imposes the zero-field symmetry, with $`n=0`$,

$$m_R=m_A=m,\overline{m}_{AL}=0$$
(94)
$`g_1`$ $`=`$ $`g_3=g_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_6={\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{g}_7=4\overline{g}_8=g`$ (95)
$`g_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{g}_4=0`$
on the renormalization equations, Eqs.(75)-(88), they reduce to Eqs. (91)-(93), naturally with $`n=0`$. For the Eqs. (91)-(93), one finds:

$`(i)`$ the trivial Gaussian f.p.

$$m^{}=0,g^{}=0,$$
(96)
which is unstable for $`\epsilon >0`$, with eigenvalues $`\lambda _1^G=2`$, $`\lambda _2^G=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon `$;

$`(ii)`$ the nontrivial zero-field f.p.

$$m^{}=\frac{\epsilon }{2},g^2=\frac{\epsilon }{\left(2n\right)},$$
(97)
which is stable for $`\epsilon >0`$, with eigenvalues $`\lambda _1^{ZF}=2(1\epsilon )`$, $`\lambda _2^{ZF}=\epsilon `$. The zero-field f.p. has then the associated critical exponents

$$\nu =\frac{1}{2}+\frac{5}{12}\epsilon ,\eta =\frac{1}{3}\epsilon $$
(98)
in agreement with the results of Harris et al.18

In the generalized parameter space, with the renormalization equations (61)-(74), or (75)-(88), one can get the fixed-points associated to zero-field by searching for fixed-points with the same symmetry as in Eqs. (89)-(90), or (94)-(95), and indeed one then finds two fixed-points, which correspond to Eqs. (96)-(97), and $`\overline{m}_{AL}^{}=0`$. For $`\epsilon >0`$, the Gaussian f.p. is unstable in all the directions, while the non-trivial zero-field f.p. is stable in two but unstable in six directions in the coupling-space, see Table I, concerning Eqs. (75)-(88). The appearance of unstable directions for the couplings in this situation, arises from the fact that the generalized parameter space has a lower symmetry than the characteristic of zero-field.24 However, of crucial importance is the fact that the initial values of the couplings, Eqs. (55)-(56), lie along one of the stable directions, i.e. Eqs. (61)-(74) and Eqs. (75)-(88), have an eigenvector (associated to the eigenvalue $`1`$), which has precisely the symmetry in, respectively, Eq. (90) and Eq. (95), see Table I for the latter. So, the system will start and will remain in a stable direction, the unstable directions playing no role. That stable direction in fact represents an invariant manifold.

In a nonzero magnetic field, $`h0`$, an anisotropy develops in the masses, and in the couplings. To discuss the effect of a small magnetic field, $`h1`$, we linearize the renormalization equations about the zero-field f.p. For the mass equations, Eqs. (61)-(63), we obtain the eigenvalues

$`\lambda _1`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{5}{3}}\epsilon `$
$`\lambda _2`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\epsilon `$ (99)
$`\lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`2+{\displaystyle \frac{(n14)}{3(n2)}}\epsilon `$
and the scaling fields

$`u_1`$ $`=`$ $`\delta m_R+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\left(n1\right)}}\delta (m_Am_R){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\left(n1\right)}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Am_L}{n}}\right)`$
$`u_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(n3)}{(n1)(n2)}}\delta (m_Am_R)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(n1)}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Am_L}{n}}\right)`$ (100)
$`u_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}}\delta (m_Am_R){\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n1)}}\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{m_Am_L}{n}}\right)`$
where $`\delta m_i=m_im^{}`$, $`i=R,A,L`$. Similar results, with $`n=0`$, are obtained from the linearization of the mass equations, Eqs. (75)-(77), around the zero-field f.p. The field $`u_1`$ represents the average mass, i.e. $`u_1=\left[n(n3)/2\delta m_R+(n1)\delta m_A+\delta m_L\right]/\left[n(n1)/2\right]`$, while the fields $`u_2`$ and $`u_3`$ are determined by the anisotropy variables, $`(m_Am_R)`$ and $`(m_Am_L)/n`$. One has that

$`u_1`$ $``$ $`(tt_c)`$
$`u_2`$ $``$ $`2Q`$ (101)
$`u_3`$ $``$ $`3Q^2.`$
So, we identify the critical exponent for the correlation length,

$$\nu =\lambda _1^1=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{5}{12}\epsilon $$
(102)
and have the crossover exponents, for $`n=0`$,

$`\varphi _2`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _2\nu =1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\epsilon `$ (103)
$`\varphi _3`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _3\nu =1+2\epsilon ,`$
which turn out to be, to order $`\epsilon `$, the critical exponent for the order parameter $`\beta =\varphi _2`$, and the critical exponent for the specific heat $`\alpha =\varphi _3`$. Here, $`\nu `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\alpha `$ are the zero-field critical exponents.

The masses are given in terms of the scaling fields by

$`\delta m_R`$ $`=`$ $`u_1+u_2+u_3`$
$`\delta m_A`$ $`=`$ $`u_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(4n\right)u_2+(3n)u_3`$ (104)
$`\delta m_L`$ $`=`$ $`u_1+(2n)u_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(2n)(3n)u_3`$
and

$$\delta \left(\frac{m_Am_L}{n}\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left[u_2+(3n)u_3\right].$$
(105)
When $`n`$ is finite, $`m_A`$ and $`m_L`$, as well as $`(m_Am_L)/n=\overline{m}_{AL}`$, will grow under the renormalization group iteration, and we have then $`m_Am_L`$, with different regimes occurring, according to the relative amplitude of the two masses. However, for $`n=0`$, one has that $`m_A=m_L`$, even though $`\overline{m}_{AL}`$ grows, and that single mass controls the behavior of the system.

We now concentrate on the set of renormalization group equations with $`n=0`$, Eqs. (75)-(88), to investigate the fixed-points in a finite magnetic field $`h0`$. One has essentially two masses, $`m_R`$ and $`m_A=m_L`$. On the AT-line, the bare masses take the values, $`m_R=0`$ and $`m_A=m_Lh^{2/3}`$. Fixing the replicon modes critical, as characteristic of the spin glass transition, we have that the anomalous and longitudinal modes will scale out of the problem, i.e. their mass diverges under the renormalization group transformation. After a few iterations, we effectively obtain the reduced set of renormalization equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{m_R}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`(2\eta _R)m_R\left[4g_1^28g_1g_2+{\displaystyle \frac{11}{4}}g_2^2\right]I_{RR}`$ (106)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_1}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _R)g_1+\left[14g_1^318g_1^2g_2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{2}}g_1g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}g_2^3\right]I_{RRR}`$ (107)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{l}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\epsilon 3\eta _R)g_2+\left[24g_1^2g_230g_1g_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{17}{2}}g_2^3\right]I_{RRR}`$ (108)
with

$$\eta _R=\frac{1}{3}\left[4g_1^28g_1g_2+\frac{11}{4}g_2^2\right]T_{RR}$$
(109)
which are equivalent to the ones studied by Bray and Roberts.19 We find the same type of fixed-points as in their work:

(i) $`g_1^{}=0,`$ $`g_2^{}=0`$. This is the usual Gaussian f.p. which is unstable for $`\epsilon >0`$;

(ii) $`g_1^2=\epsilon /24,`$ $`g_2^{}=0`$. This f.p. is stable but unphysical, because it is complex and hence inaccessible from the domain of physical initial conditions via the renormalization group equations;

(iii) $`g_1^{}=(0.415\pm i0.090)\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_2^{}=(0.708i0.018)\sqrt{\epsilon }`$; $`g_1^{}=i0.010\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_2^{}=i0.283\sqrt{\epsilon }`$. These fixed-points are unphysical, and also turn out to be unstable.

Hence no physical stable fixed-point is found to describe the AT transition.

We present now a set of fixed-points which we found for Eqs.(75)-(88), when searching for fixed-points with critical masses $`m_R`$ and $`m_A=m_L`$, i.e., by dropping $`m_R`$ and $`m_A`$ in the denominators of those equations. In addition to the zero-field fixed-point, discussed above, which has the symmetry $`m_R^{}=m_A^{}=m_L^{}`$, $`\overline{m}_{AL}^{}=0`$, we find the other following ones:

(I) $`g_1^{}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_2^{}=\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_5^{}=\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_3^{}=g_6^{}=\overline{g}_7^{}=0`$, $`\overline{g}_4^{}=2u\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`\overline{g}_8^{}=\frac{9}{4}u\sqrt{\epsilon }`$; $`m_R^{}=m_A^{}=0`$, $`\overline{m}_{AL}^{}=\frac{3}{8}\epsilon `$. This in fact represents a line of equivalent fixed-points, $`u`$ being an arbitrary real number, that parametrizes the line. The eigenvalues, both in the coupling and mass spaces, remain unchanged along the line. Those fixed-points are stable in two directions, unstable in two directions, and marginal in one direction in the coupling-space, see Table II. In the mass-space the eigenvalues are, $`\lambda _1=2\frac{1}{2}\epsilon `$, $`\lambda _2=\lambda _3=2`$. These fixed-points are in fact related to a fixed-point that is obtained for a different symmetry ($`m_R=m_A=0`$, $`m_L0`$), which will be discussed in a separate publication.20

(II) $`g_1^{}=g_2^{}=g_5^{}=0`$, $`g_3^{}=0.350\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ , $`\overline{g}_4^{}=0.656\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_6^{}=0.519\sqrt{\epsilon },`$ $`\overline{g}_7^{}=0.308\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`\overline{g}_8^{}=0.067\sqrt{\epsilon }`$; $`m_R^{}=0.153\epsilon `$, $`m_A^{}=0.073\epsilon `$, $`\overline{m}_{AL}^{}=0.072\epsilon `$. This f.p. is stable in five directions and unstable in three directions in the coupling-space, see Table III. The eigenvalues in the mass-space are, $`\lambda _1=20.795\epsilon ,`$ $`\lambda _2=20.524\epsilon ,`$ $`\lambda _3=20.151\epsilon `$.

(III) $`g_1^{}=0.031\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_2^{}=0.540\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_3^{}=0.311\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`\overline{g}_4^{}=0.237\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_5^{}=0.214\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`g_6^{}=0.368\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`\overline{g}_7^{}=0.134\sqrt{\epsilon }`$, $`\overline{g}_8^{}=0.060\sqrt{\epsilon }`$; $`m_R^{}=0.068\epsilon `$, $`m_A^{}=0.057\epsilon `$, $`\overline{m}_{AL}^{}=0.002\epsilon `$. This f.p. is stable in five directions and unstable in three directions in the coupling-space, see Table IV. The eigenvalues in the mass-space are, $`\lambda _1=20.519\epsilon ,`$ $`\lambda _2=20.325\epsilon ,`$ $`\lambda _3=20.096\epsilon `$.

So, although one can find different real fixed-points involving $`m_R`$ and $`m_A=m_L`$, none is fully stable in coupling-space, excluding the zero-field f.p. discussed above. Each of the three fixed-points above attracts its own critical manifold which is spanned by the eigenvectors associated to the irrelevant eigenvalues ($`\lambda <0`$), i.e. the stable directions. The initial conditions in a field, correspond in the coupling-space to a vector where all the components are finite, see Eqs. (55)-(56). Comparing the structure of the critical manifolds associated to each of the fixed points (I), (II) and (III), as given in respectively Table II, III and IV, with the structure of the initial conditions, one may say the following. F.p. (I) is quite disconnected, f.p. (II) has some connection, f.p. (III) is the most connected one to the initial conditions. Fixed-point (II) suggests a separation of the coupling-space into two sectors containing, respectively, $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, $`g_5`$ and $`g_3`$, $`\overline{g}_4`$, $`g_6`$, $`\overline{g}_7`$, $`\overline{g}_8`$, neither of those sectors being however completely stable. Fixed-point (III) is the most likely to have some influence on the flows in the coupling-space in a field. Notice that the dimension of its critical manifold is equal to the number of distinct unbarred couplings ($`g_j`$, $`j=1,2,3,5,6`$). It is yet difficult to give a physical meaning to those three fixed points, and in particular connect them to a spin glass transition in a field. They may reflect different symmetries that are included in the general field theory considered.

## V CONCLUSIONS

We present the general field theory, appropriate to study the transition of a short-range spin glass in a magnetic field, which contains three masses and eight couplings, explicitly written in terms of the fields for the replicon, anomalous and longitudinal modes. This theory allows a standard perturbation expansion, using propagators which involve projector operators. The structure of the masses and the couplings depends on the mean field value of the order parameter, and the number of replicas $`n`$. We discuss the symmetry of the theory in the limit $`n0`$, and consider the regular case where there is a degeneracy between the anomalous and longitudinal masses, and a degeneracy in the couplings involving the anomalous and longitudinal modes. We calculate the equation of state, the bare masses and the bare couplings in mean-field theory. The mean-field calculation shows a transition in zero field, where all the modes become critical, and a transition in nonzero field, along the AT-line, with only the replicon mode critical. We then study the problem using the renormalization group, to order $`\epsilon =6d`$. The renormalization group transformation preserves the degeneracy between the anomalous and longitudinal masses, and the degeneracy in the couplings involving the anomalous and longitudinal modes, when $`n`$ is fixed to zero. Within the general field theory we find a fixed-point associated to the transition in zero-field, which provides the zero-field critical exponents. This fixed-point which is stable in zero-field becomes unstable in the presence of a small magnetic field, and we calculate crossover exponents, which we relate to zero-field critical exponents. It is, however, not clear where the crossover leads to. For a finite magnetic field, we find no physical stable fixed-point, that would describe the AT transition, in agreement with the results of Bray and Roberts.19 The absence of stable fixed-points, accessible from the domain of physical initial Hamiltonians, can have different interpretations in the renormalization group, as discussed in Ref. 19: the fluctuations may drive the transition first order, the transition may be first order even within mean-field theory, or the fluctuations may destroy the transition. To conclude, the present study shows that a theory with degeneracy between the anomalous and longitudinal masses, as imposed by keeping $`n`$ equal zero, leaves no place for a second order spin glass transition outside zero-field.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful to E. Brézin for helpful discussions. This work has been supported by the Hungarian Science Fund (OTKA), grant No. T032424.

## APPENDIX

We present here the derivation of the expressions for the longitudinal, anomalous and replicon projectors given in Eqs. (18), (25) and (30). We obtain those expressions following a procedure similar to the one used by Bray and Roberts to get the components of the replicon projector in their work.19

The longitudinal projector is defined by, Eq. (17),

$$P^L=e^Le^L(A1)$$

where $`e^L`$ represents a component of the replica independent unit vector, $`𝐞^L\sqrt{2/n(n1)}[1,\mathrm{},1]`$,

$$e_{\alpha \beta }^L=e^L(A2)$$

The longitudinal projector has then only one component, which is obviously given by

$$P^L=\frac{2}{n(n1)}.(A3)$$

The anomalous projector is defined by, Eq. (26),

$$P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }e_\beta ^{A,\mu }(A4)$$

where the vectors $`𝐞^{A,\mu }`$ have the property

$$\underset{\alpha }{}e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }=0(A5)$$

and normalization $`_\alpha e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }=\frac{4}{(n2)}`$ (which follows from the fact that $`𝐞^{A,\mu }`$ is a unit vector in the space of replica pairs and $`e_{\alpha \beta }^{A,\mu }=\frac{1}{2}(e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }+e_\beta ^{A,\mu })`$ ). The anomalous projector has two distinct components: $`P_{\alpha ,\alpha }^A`$ and $`P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A`$ with $`\alpha \beta `$. Setting $`\alpha =\beta `$ in Eq. (A4) and summing both sides over $`\alpha `$, gives

$`nP_{\alpha ,\alpha }^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(n1)}{(n2)}};(A6)`$
setting $`\alpha \beta `$ in Eq. (A4) and summing both sides over $`\alpha \beta `$, gives

$`n(n1)P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }e_\beta ^{A,\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }e_\alpha ^{A,\mu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4(n1)}{(n2)}},(A7)`$
where we used Eq. (A5). Eqs. (A6) and (A7) lead to the general form for the anomalous projector,

$$P_{\alpha ,\beta }^A=\frac{4}{(n2)}\left(\delta _{\alpha \beta }\frac{1}{n}\right)(A8)$$

The replicon projector is defined by, Eq. (31),

$$P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R=\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }e_{\gamma \delta }^{R,\nu }.(A9)$$

where $`𝐞^{R,\nu }`$ are unit vectors, which have the property

$$\underset{\alpha (\beta )}{}e_{\alpha \beta }^R=0.(A10)$$

The replicon projector $`P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R`$ has three different components: $`P_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta }^R`$, $`P_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \delta }^R`$ with $`\beta \delta `$, and $`P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R`$ with $`\alpha \gamma ,\beta \delta `$. Setting $`\alpha =\gamma `$, $`\beta =\delta `$ in Eq. (A9) and summing both sides over distinct $`\alpha ,\beta ,`$ gives

$`n(n1)P_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \beta }^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }`$
$`=`$ $`n(n3);(A11)`$
setting $`\alpha =\gamma `$, $`\beta \delta `$ in Eq. (A9) and summing both sides over distinct $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\delta `$ , gives

$`n(n1)(n2)P_{\alpha \beta ,\alpha \delta }^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\delta }{}^{}}e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }e_{\alpha \delta }^{R,\nu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha \beta }{}}e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }`$
$`=`$ $`n(n3)(A12)`$
where we used Eq. (A10); setting $`\alpha \gamma `$, $`\beta \delta `$ in Eq. (A9) and summing both sides over distinct $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\delta `$ , gives, using again Eq. (A10),

$`n(n1)(n2)(n3)P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta }{}^{}}e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }e_{\gamma \delta }^{R,\nu }`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\nu =1}{\overset{\frac{1}{2}n(n3)}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha ,\beta ,\delta }{}^{}}e_{\alpha \beta }^{R,\nu }(e_{\alpha \delta }^{R,\nu }+e_{\beta \delta }^{R,\nu })`$
$`=`$ $`2n(n3)(A13)`$
Eqs. (A11), (A12) and (A13) lead to the general form for the replicon projector,

$`P_{\alpha \beta ,\gamma \delta }^R`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \delta }+\delta _{\alpha \delta }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\right)\left(\delta _{\alpha \gamma }+\delta _{\alpha \delta }+\delta _{\beta \gamma }+\delta _{\beta \delta }\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{n2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(n1)(n2)}}(A14)`$
with $`\alpha \beta `$, $`\gamma \delta `$. The results in Eqs. (A.11), (A.12) and (A.13), are similar to the ones obtained by Bray and Roberts.19

## References

1K. Binder and A.P. Young, Rev. Mod. Phys. 58, 801 (1986).

2M. Mézard, G. Parisi, and M.A. Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory and Beyond (World Scientific, Singapore, 1987).

3K.H. Fischer and J.H. Hertz, Spin Glasses (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991).

4Spin Glasses and Random Fields, edited by A.P. Young (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998).

5Spin Glasses and Biology, edited by D. Stein (World Scientific, Singapore 1992).

6S.F. Edwards and P.W. Anderson, J. Phys. F 5, 965 (1975).

7G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1754 (1979); J. Phys. A 13, L115,13, 1101, 13, 1887 (1980); Phys. Rev. Lett. 50, 1946 (1983).

8D. Sherrington and S. Kirkpatrick, Phys. Rev. Lett.  35, 1792 (1975).

9D.S. Fisher and D.A. Huse, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 1601 (1986); Phys. Rev. B 38, 386 (1988).

10W.L. McMillan, J. Phys. C 17, 3179 (1984).

11A. J. Bray and M.A. Moore, in Proceedings of the Heidelberg Colloquium on Glassy Dynamics, edited by J.L. van Hemmen and I. Morgenstern (Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 1986),p. 121; Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 57 (1987).

12J.R.L. de Almeida and D.J. Thouless, J. Phys. A 11 , 983 (1977).

13A.J. Bray and M.A. Moore, J. Phys. C 12, 79 (1979).

14P. Nordblad and P. Svedlindh, in Spin Glasses and Random Fields, edited by A.P. Young (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998),p. 1.

15P. Monod and H. Bouchiat, J. Physique Lett. 43, L45 (1982); V.S. Zotev and R. Orbach,(submitted), cond-mat/0201226.

16E. Marinari, G. Parisi, and J.J. Ruiz-Lorenzo, in  Spin Glasses and Random Fields, edited by A.P. Young (World Scientific, Singapore, 1998),p. 59; J. Houdayer and O.C. Martin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 49, 34 (1999); F. Krzakala, J. Houdayer, E. Marinari, O. C. Martin, and G. Parisi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 197204 (2001).

17J.E. Green, M.A. Moore, and A.J. Bray, J. Phys. C 16 , L815 (1983).

18A.B. Harris, T.C. Lubensky, and J-H. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 415 (1976).

19A.J. Bray and S.A. Roberts, J. Phys. C 13, 5405 (1980).

20T. Temesvari, C. De Dominicis, and I.R. Pimentel, (submitted).

21T. Temesvari, C. De Dominicis, and I.R. Pimentel, Eur. Phys. J. B 25, 361 (2002).

22C. De Dominicis, D.M. Carlucci, and T. Temesvári, J. Phys. I France 7, 105 (1997).

23E. Pytte and J. Rudnick, Phys.Rev. B 19, 3603 (1979).

24K.G. Wilson and J.B. Kogut, Phys. Rep. 12C, 75 (1974).

TABLE I. Eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ and eigenvectors $`E`$, in coupling-space for the zero-field f.p..

| $`\lambda `$ | $`1`$ | $`3.82`$ | $`0.74\pm i2.54`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 1\\ 2\\ 3/2\\ 1/4\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0.51\\ 0.22\\ 0.26\\ 0.84\\ 0.48\\ 1\\ 0.75\\ 0.19\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0.09\pm i0.06\\ 0.50\pm i0.36\\ 0.50\pm i0.12\\ 0.34\pm i0.05\\ 0.41\pm i0.01\\ 1\\ 0.79\pm i0.10\\ 0.22\pm i0.07\end{array}\right]`$ |
| $`\lambda `$ | $`1`$ | $`7`$ | $`(10\pm i\sqrt{23})/3`$ |
| $`E`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}3/7\\ 16/7\\ 2\\ 1\\ 11/7\\ 26/7\\ 41/14\\ 45/56\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}1/5\\ 4/5\\ 1\\ 1\\ 1\\ 3\\ 3\\ 3/2\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}(13\pm i\sqrt{23})/64\\ (19i\sqrt{23})/16\\ (59i\sqrt{23})/48\\ 1\\ (205\pm i\sqrt{23})/192\\ 3\\ (85\pm i\sqrt{23})/32\\ (135\pm i\sqrt{207})/128\end{array}\right]`$ |

TABLE II. Eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ and eigenvectors $`E`$, in coupling-space for f.p. (I), {degeneracy}.

$`\lambda `$ $`1`$ $`(2\pm \sqrt{91})/6`$ $`0`$ $`\left\{2\right\}`$ $`1/2`$ $`\left\{3\right\}`$  $`E`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ 2\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1/2\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}1\\ (14\pm 2\sqrt{91})/3\\ 0\\ 0\\ (11\pm \sqrt{91})/6\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\\ 9/8\end{array}\right]`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1\end{array}\right]`$

TABLE III. Eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ and eigenvectors $`E`$, in coupling-space for f.p. (II).

| $`\lambda `$ | $`0.606`$ | $`1.692`$ | $`1.001`$ | $`0.319\pm i1.818`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0.83\\ 0.41\\ 0\\ 0.55\\ 1.00\\ 0.64\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0.90\\ 0.24\\ 0\\ 0.84\\ 1.00\\ 0.48\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 1.00\\ 0.32\\ 0\\ 0.68\\ 0.89\\ 0.42\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ 0.13\pm i1.08\\ 0.21\pm i0.39\\ 0\\ 0.32\pm i0.80\\ 1.00\pm i1.02\\ 0.73\pm i0.25\end{array}\right]`$ |
| $`\lambda `$ | $`1.793`$ | $`0.895`$ | $`0.002`$ |  |
| $`E`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0.63\\ 0.39\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1.00\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}1.00\\ 0.02\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0.34\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}0.79\\ 0.57\\ 0\\ 0\\ 1.00\\ 0\\ 0\\ 0\end{array}\right]`$ |  |

TABLE IV. Eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ and eigenvectors $`E`$, in coupling-space for f.p. (III).

| $`\lambda `$ | $`1.45`$ | $`1.00`$ | $`0.65`$ | $`0.37\pm i0.15`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`E`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0.03\\ \hfill 1.00\\ \hfill 0.63\\ \hfill 0.41\\ \hfill 0.48\\ \hfill 0.93\\ \hfill 0.35\\ \hfill 0.14\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0.06\\ \hfill 1.00\\ \hfill 0.57\\ \hfill 0.44\\ \hfill 0.40\\ \hfill 0.68\\ \hfill 0.25\\ \hfill 0.11\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0.26\\ \hfill 0.08\\ \hfill 0.08\\ \hfill 1.00\\ \hfill 0.14\\ \hfill 0.58\\ \hfill 0.70\\ \hfill 0.18\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0.54i0.49\\ \hfill 1.00\pm i0.51\\ \hfill 0.04\pm i0.21\\ \hfill 0.65\pm i1.93\\ \hfill 0.17\pm i0.12\\ \hfill 0.48\pm i0.22\\ \hfill 0.65i0.56\\ \hfill 0.18\pm i0.25\end{array}\right]`$ |
| $`\lambda `$ | $`0.31`$ | $`0.16`$ | $`0.04`$ |  |
| $`E`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0.44\\ \hfill 0.70\\ \hfill 0.15\\ \hfill 0.33\\ \hfill 0.89\\ \hfill 0.67\\ \hfill 1.00\\ \hfill 0.01\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0.04\\ \hfill 0.22\\ \hfill 0.16\\ \hfill 0.06\\ \hfill 0.15\\ \hfill 0.70\\ \hfill 0.99\\ \hfill 1.00\end{array}\right]`$ | $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill 0.03\\ \hfill 1.00\\ \hfill 0.60\\ \hfill 0.43\\ \hfill 0.37\\ \hfill 0.60\\ \hfill 0.35\\ \hfill 0.14\end{array}\right]`$ |  |


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

A new generation of neutrino experiments is under construction and they will be running soon. The analysis and interpretation of their results requires accurate calculations of the neutrino–nucleon and neutrino–nucleus cross sections. Several ratios of cross sections are also accessible in these experiments: among them are ratios of neutral to charged current reactions. It is shown in this article that several ratios can be calculated precisely, with the largest contribution obtained from symmetry considerations and smaller terms are determined from data and/or theoretical estimates of reactions. Having these estimates at our disposal, we can use them to interpret measurements at various distances from the origin of the neutrino beams. Changes of the ratios with the distance from the origin will point to a change of the neutrino or antineutrino fluxes and consequently oscillations to other species of neutrinos.

The article follows the standard model of the electroweak theory with the charged current given by

$$J_\mu ^+(x)=(V_\mu ^1+iV_\mu ^2)(A_\mu ^1+iA_\mu ^2)$$
(1)
and neutral current given by

$$J_\mu ^{NC}=(12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)V_\mu ^3A_\mu ^32\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _WV_\mu ^0.$$
(2)
$`V_\mu ^3`$ and the isoscalar part of the current have the quark content

$$V_\mu ^3=\frac{1}{2}(\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d),V_\mu ^0=\frac{1}{6}(\overline{u}\gamma _\mu u+\overline{d}\gamma _\mu d2\overline{s}\gamma _\mu s),$$
(3)
whose contribution to various reactions is determined by comparing electron induced reactions on protons and neutrons.

Ratios of the cross sections were useful  in establishing lower bounds for neutral current processes and determined the Weinberg angle . In the meanwhile many matrix elements of the currents are known. The experience accumulated so far will be used to express ratios of reactions as equalities.

## 2 Cross Sections

Pion–inclusive Production

Most of the new experiments will be using medium and heavy nuclei where the interactions of the final pion are known to be important. We shall consider the scattering of neutrinos on isospin–zero nuclei and we shall not make the assumption of single nucleon interactions. Instead we consider the scattering of the current from the complete nucleus leading to a final pion and a recoiling system of hadrons with isospin $`I=0,1,2`$. For the isospin analysis we adopt the standard notation  with $`U_{}^{(I)},U_0^{(I)}`$ being the contributions of the isovector current to the cross sections $`\sigma _{}`$ and $`\sigma _0`$ for charged and neutral current, respectively, and $`I`$ denotes the isospin of the recoiling hadronic state, i.e. the states $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_4`$ below. Similarly, $`S_0`$ is the isoscalar contribution to $`\sigma _0`$ by itself, which occurs only for the $`I=1`$ final state. The quantum mechanical structure of the cross section gives the relation

$$\frac{\sigma _0^0}{\sigma _{}^{ch}\sigma _{}^0}=\frac{U_0^{(0)}+\frac{2}{5}U_0^{(2)}+\frac{1}{3}S_0}{U_{}^{(0)}+\frac{2}{5}U_{}^{(2)}}$$
(4)
with

$`\sigma _{}^{ch}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \left(\nu _\mu +(I=0)\mu ^{}+\pi ^++x_1\right)+\sigma \left(\nu _\mu +(I=0)\mu ^{}+\pi ^{}+x_2\right)`$
$`\sigma _{}^0`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \left(\nu _\mu +(I=0)\mu ^{}+\pi ^0+x_3\right)`$
$`\sigma _0^0`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma \left(\nu _\mu +(I=0)\nu _\mu +\pi ^0+x_4\right)`$ (5)
with $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_4`$ undetected hadronic states.

The corresponding cross sections for antineutrinos are obtained by charge symmetry and by changing the sign of the vector$``$axial–vector term. Thus, adding neutrino and antineutrino reactions eliminates the vector$``$axial–vector interference term. It follows now

$$R_0=\frac{\sigma _0^0+\overline{\sigma }_0^0}{(\sigma _{}^{ch}\sigma _{}^0)+(\overline{\sigma }_{}^{ch}\overline{\sigma }_{}^0)}=\frac{1}{2}\left\{1\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W\left[V_{em}^{(0)}+V_{em}^{(2)}\right]4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W\frac{1}{3}|S_0|^2}{\frac{1}{2}\left[(\sigma _{}^{ch}\sigma _{}^0)+(\overline{\sigma }_{}^{ch}\overline{\sigma }_{}^0)\right]}\right\}$$
(6)
with $`\theta _W`$ the Weinberg angle and

$$\frac{dV_{em}^{(I)}}{dQ^2d\nu }=\frac{G^2}{\pi }\frac{Q^4}{4\pi \alpha ^2}\frac{d\sigma _{em}^{(I)}}{dQ^2d\nu }$$
(7)
being the isovector contribution of the electromagnetic current to a final state $`x_4`$ with isospin $`I=0,1,2`$. Similarly, $`|S_0|^2`$ is the corresponding expression for the isoscalar contribution of the electromagnetic current with only the $`I=1`$ state contributing to $`x_4`$. Since the ratio within the parenthesis is positive, as will be shown in eq. (15), there is the upper bound

$$R_0\frac{1}{2}.$$
(8)
The ratio in eq. (6) is an exact equality. We have now sufficient information for neutrino, antineutrino and electron interactions with nucleons and nuclei to arrive at an accurate estimate of the right–hand side, without invoking the inequality. It will be shown below that the quotient in the bracket of eq. (6) is relatively small so that even general allowances for the uncertainties still give an accurate value for $`R_0`$.

We shall use next information on the electroproduction and neutrino induced reactions in order to estimate eq. (6). We can complete the electromagnetic cross section by adding and subtracting the appropriate isoscalar term

$$R_0=\frac{1}{2}[1\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W\frac{V_{em}}{\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }})}+(4\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W+\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W)\frac{1}{3}\frac{|S_0|^2}{\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Sigma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }})})].$$
(9)
with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\sigma _{}^{ch}\sigma _{}^0`$ and a corresponding expression $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ for antineutrinos. The results so far are general. If we had data for the cross sections in nuclei we could substitute them in eq. (9). This data is not yet available and we shall use cross sections on protons and neutrons.

For the mixing angle we adopt the value $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=0.2227\pm 0.0004`$ . For $`V_{em}`$ we use the data of Galster et al.  and W. Bartel et al.  on hydrogen to estimate

$$V_{em}(e+pe+\mathrm{\Delta }^+)=0.16\times 10^{38}\mathrm{cm}^2$$
(10)
at 2.0 GeV. The data show  that $`V_{em}(\pi ^0)/V_{em}(ch)`$ = 1.5 and there is at most a $`20\%`$ incoherent background. The neutrino cross sections on protons and neutrons were measured in the early experiments:

| Reaction | Cross section | Reference |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  | in $`10^{38}`$ cm2 |  |
| $`\nu p\mu ^{}p\pi ^+`$ | $`0.70\pm 0.10`$ |  |
| $`\nu n\mu ^{}p\pi ^0`$ | $`0.20\pm 0.05`$ |  |
| $`\nu n\mu ^{}n\pi ^+`$ | $`0.20\pm 0.07`$ |  |
| $`\overline{\nu }n\mu ^+n\pi ^{}`$ | 0.31 | theory |
| $`\overline{\nu }p\mu ^+p\pi ^{}`$ | 0.14 | theory |
| $`\overline{\nu }p\mu ^+n\pi ^0`$ | 0.12 | theory |

Table 1: Neutrino and antineutrino cross sections at $`E_\nu =2`$ GeV.

The neutrino cross sections were measured on Hydrogen and Deuterium where the nucleons are practically free. The experimental data were collected together in ref.  where they are also compared with theoretical calculations. For the antineutrino reactions there is no data at low energies and we use theoretical values from ref. . In going from protons and neutrons to nuclei, it is necessary to include nuclear effects, which brings in a model dependence.

The new experiments will be using medium and heavy nuclei as targets where nuclear effects are important. Among the corrections are Pauli blocking at the weak interaction vertex and at the rescatterings, absorption of the pions and charge exchange from the subsequent scatterings. For nuclear corrections we shall use a model with multiple scatterings  which has been compared in a few cases with the experimental data  and was found to be consistent. The charge exchange matrix has been calculated for several nuclei . We shall consider the scattering on $`{}_{8}{}^{}O_{}^{16}`$ where the charge exchange matrix is

$$M(_8O^{16})=A\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0.78& 0.16& 0.06\\ 0.16& 0.68& 0.16\\ 0.06& 0.16& 0.78\end{array}\right).$$

The factor $`A`$ includes the Pauli factor and part of the absorption. It is the same for all three semileptonic reactions and drops out in the ratios. Using the experimental values from Table 1 together with the mixing matrix we obtain

$`(\sigma _{}^{ch}\sigma _{}^0)_{\mathrm{Nucl}.\mathrm{corr}.}`$ $`=`$ $`A(0.27\pm 0.05)\times 10^{38}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (11)
$`(\sigma _+^{ch}\sigma _+^0)_{\mathrm{Nucl}.\mathrm{corr}.}`$ $`=`$ $`A\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.12}\times 10^{38}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{and}V_{em}`$ $`=`$ $`A\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0.09}\times 10^{38}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (13)
for $`E_\nu =2.0`$ GeV. The values for the antineutrino cross sections are theoretical and for this reason we do not quote any errors. In the electroproduction data the errors are very small. Using the above values we obtain the ratio

$$\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _W\frac{V_{em}(\pi ^0)}{\frac{1}{2}[\mathrm{\Sigma }+\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}]}=0.70\frac{0.09}{\frac{1}{2}(0.39)}=0.32.$$
(14)
The corresponding isoscalar term is small and is included as a 20% background to the electroproduction . The final ratio is

$$R_0=\frac{1}{2}(10.32+0.05)=0.37$$
(15)
with the second and third terms coming from the isovector and isoscalar part of $`V_{em}`$, respectively.

Experimental errors and/or other uncertainties stem from the second and third terms in the parenthesis of eq. (9), which are much smaller than one. Thus the overall error originating from these terms is reduced; for instance a 20% error from eq. (14) translates to the value $`R_0=0.37\pm 0.03`$. The numerical calculation illustrates the method to be followed when better data becomes available.

There are several other ratios which one can discuss, but we shall postpone this topic for a more extensive article and concentrate on different kinds of reactions which bring out new aspects of the calculations. An alternative is to use only ratios of neutrino cross sections. In this case the vector–axial interference term must be calculated theoretically, as was done explicitly in various articles .

Total cross sections

We consider again isoscalar targets and sum over final states. In this case there is a popular ratio  where the uncertainties cancel out

$$D=\frac{\sigma _0\overline{\sigma }_0}{\sigma _{}\overline{\sigma }_{}}=\frac{1}{2}(12\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W)=0.274\pm 0.002.$$
(16)
This ratio is known precisely and the new experiments can measure the cross sections at various distances from the accelerator, where the neutrino and antineutrino beams are produced. An increase of $`D`$ with the distance is an indication for oscillation to active neutrinos, which provides a model independent method for extracting oscillation parameters.

An alternative ratio is obtained by adding neutrino and antineutrino cross sections

$$R_1=\frac{\sigma _0+\overline{\sigma }_0}{\sigma _{}+\overline{\sigma }_{}}=\frac{1}{2}\left[1\frac{\mathrm{sin}^22\theta _WV_{em}^34\mathrm{sin}^4\theta _W|J_{em}^0|^2}{\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _{}+\sigma _+)}\right]$$
(17)
where $`V_{em}^3`$ is the isovector contribution (in the sense of eq. (7)) to deep inelastic scattering and $`|J_{em}^0|^2`$ the contribution from the isoscalar part of the current. We can proceed as in eq. (9) to replace $`V_{em}^3`$ with the complete electromagnetic contribution. The ratio

$$\frac{2V_{em}}{\sigma _{}+\sigma _+}=0.58\pm 0.08$$
(18)
with the neutrino and antineutrino cross sections taken from the particle data group and $`V_{em}`$ from electroproduction data. The value in eq. (18) is close to the prediction of the parton model . Deviations from this value will come from the strange and antistrange quark contributions, which are small. For the errors we assign a 14 $`\%`$ error to the electroproduction cross section and a 2 $`\%`$ to the neutrino cross sections to arrive at

$$R_1=0.33\pm 0.03$$
(19)
For the calculation we completed the electromagnetic term by adding the isoscalar contribution, which was also subtracted in the last term of eq. (17), in direct analogy to the method used in eq. (9). We note that the error in eq. (19) is small.

Coherent Scattering

In neutrino experiments, when the final lepton is almost parallel to the initial neutrino then the leptonic cross section is related to the pionic one

$$\frac{d\sigma }{dQ^2d\nu d\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\frac{G^2}{2\pi ^2}\frac{1}{\nu }\frac{E^{}}{E}F_\pi ^2\left(\frac{m_\pi ^2}{m_\pi ^2+Q^2}\right)^2\frac{d\sigma _\pi }{d\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(20)
We adopted the standard notation for the variables with the phase space element $`d\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ referring to the final hadronic states and $`F_\pi `$ is the pion decay coupling constant, $`F_\pi 0.9m_\pi `$. The equation holds for neutral and charged current reactions provided that we restrict the kinematics to the region where coherent scattering is dominant. Coherent scattering occurs when the following conditions are met:

1. the magnitude of the momentum transfer is comparable to the square of the mass of the particle exchanged, so that a forward peak is produced,
2. the momentum transfer is small, so that the exchanged particle propagates over a region comparable to its wave length. If in addition the momentum of the incident neutrino is small, its wave function overlaps with several scattering centers.

In coherent scattering the quantum numbers of the region under investigation add up in the amplitude. For example, an interaction proportional to the baryon number counts the baryons contained in the region of investigation. Similarly, the electromagnetic interactions count the charge enclosed in the region of investigation.

A forward peak has been observed in single pion production by charged currents  and the results were reported to be consistent with the PCAC hypothesis. It is possible that other very light particles couple directly to the weak currents in a way similar to that of the pions. Low energy neutrino experiments at the MeV or lower energies can search for them with the help of coherent scattering.

## 3 Neutral to Charged current ratios in Oscillations

In the long base line experiments, a beam of muon–type neutrinos is produced near an accelerator. As the neutrinos travel a distance $`L`$, they can oscillate to other species of active and/or sterile neutrinos. At a distance $`L`$ the beam is a mixture of muon–type neutrinos with flux $`F_\mu (L)`$, of another species of active neutrinos $`F_\nu (L)`$ and, perhaps, of sterile neutrinos $`F_S(L)`$. The initial condition is $`F_\mu (0)=1`$ and $`F_\nu (0)=F_S(0)=0`$. Let us also assume that the energy of the experiments is low enough so that, for threshold reasons, the new type of active neutrinos do not contribute to the charged current reactions. This is the case in the oscillation of muon– to tau–neutrinos. Taking the ratio of neutral to charge current reactions, one obtains for the number of events the ratio

$$\frac{N_{NC}}{N_{CC}}=\frac{F_\mu (L)+F_\nu (L)}{F_\mu (L)}\frac{\sigma ^{NC}}{\sigma ^{CC}},$$
(21)
which was suggested as a means for analyzing oscillation phenomena . The ratio carries two uncertainties: one coming from the values of the cross sections and the other from the fluxes. For this reason, the analyses rely on double ratios . The results of this article indicate that for several channels the ratio of cross sections is known. This will be useful in the analysis of the data and may eliminate the need to use double ratios.

## 4 Summary

We have shown that, in the electroweak theory, ratios of neutral to charged current reactions are related to electromagnetic reactions and can be estimated in terms of available data. The relations (9), (16) and (17) are general and hold at low and high energies. They are particularly useful at specific energy regions. Eq. (9) is more useful in the low energy region $`E_\nu <2.0`$ GeV, where there are few particles in the final state. Eq. (16) has been used extensively at various energy regions. Eq. (17) is more suitable at higher energies where the incoherent scattering from the quarks gives the accurate prediction of eq. (19).

The relations were derived for isoscalar targets and hold for $`I=0`$ nuclei as a whole, which eliminates the assumption of single nucleon interactions. Since electroproduction and antineutrino data is not available in nuclei, we used a model for estimating nuclear effects. We found out that the final values are rather insensitive to experimental uncertainties, because they cancel out in ratios and the dominant term follows from isospin symmetry. In all cases, the contribution from the isoscalar part of the weak neutral current is small. We hope that these results will be useful in analyzing oscillation experiments.

The last topic is coherent scattering, which relates neutrino and antineutrino induced reactions to the pion induced reactions. In this kinematic region the pion induced reactions determine the absolute neutrino cross sections. When the square of the momentum transfer and the energy transfer are small, the exchange current probes a region comparable to its wavelength. These reactions make possible the searches for light particles that couple to neutrinos and hadrons. An interesting case is the coupling of neutrinos to the baryon current, which will bring a large enhancement. The searches using coherent scattering are analogous to the Primakoff effect, which has been very useful in the past.

Acknowledgement The support of the “Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie”, Bonn under contract 05HT1PEA9 is gratefully acknowledged.