format: text

text:
# Dynamical Gauge Theory for the 𝑋𝑌 Gauge Glass Model

## I Introduction

The physics of disordered systems has been one of most fascinating subjects for theorists and experimentalists. The gauge glass is a typical example in this category and has attracted much attentions. The model describes thermodynamics of various systems such as disordered magnets with random Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction RubiSN83 , Josephson-junction arrays with positional disorder in a magnetic field GranaK86 , vortex glasses FishTY91 , and crystal systems on disordered substrates ChaFer95 . In three dimensions, the spin glass (SG) transition 111 This disordered phase is sometimes called “the glass phase” or “the vortex glass phase”. However, in this paper, we call it the SG phase, since they have the same properties.  for strongly disordered regime has been confirmed in the gauge glass systems by numerical simulations HuseS90 ; RegeEA91 ; CiepBK91 ; LiNRS96 ; KosteS97 ; KosteA98 ; MaucoG98 ; OlsonY00 ; AkinoK02  and renormalization group (RG) analyses Gingra91 ; CiepEA92 , which is consistent with experimental observations KochEA89 ; GammSB91 ; DekkEK92 .

In two dimensions, there is a controversy about the existence of glass-like phase in strongly disordered regime. Although the long-range SG order is denied in two dimensions NishiK93 , there is a possibility of a quasi-long-range order in which the SG correlation decays according to a power law OzekiN93 ; Ozeki96  like the ferromagnetic (FM) correlation in the Kosterlitz-Thouless (KT) phase KosteT73 ; Koster74 . Some numerical simulations supported the latter case Li92 ; JeonKC95 ; KimEA97 ; ChoiP99 , while experimental observation DekkEA92  and numerical simulations KosteS97 ; KosteA98 ; AkinoK02 ; RegerY93 ; HymaEA95  deny it. In weakly disordered regime, the instability of the KT phase against small disorder is suggested by the perturbation expansion and the RG analysis Korshn93 ; MudryW99 , while it is denied by numerical simulations ChaFer95 ; JeonKC95 ; KosteS97 ; MaucoG97  and other RG analyses JeonKC95 ; NattEA95 ; KorshN96 ; Tang96 ; Scheid97 . There is another controversy in two dimensions about the existence of re-entrant transition from the KT phase to the non-KT one. Earlier works with real space RG analyses suggest re-entrance RubiSN83 ; GranaK86 ; ForrEA88 ; PaczuK91 , however the analysis has been modified and provides the absence of it NattEA95 ; KorshN96 ; Tang96 ; Scheid97 . The same results are obtained by Monte Carlo simulations ChakrD88 ; ForrBL90 ; ChaFer95 ; JeonKC95 ; KosteS97 ; MaucoG98  and the RG analyses GingrS92 ; NattEA95 .

Since randomness and frustration make it difficult to examine short-range systems analytically as well as numerically, only few things have been confirmed definitely in spite of huge number of studies. Thus, it is highly desirable to have analytic method for understanding the thermodynamic and critical behaviors in random spin systems. The method of gauge transformation is a useful technique to derive analytic results in gauge symmetric random spin systems Nishim81 ; Kitata92 ; OzekiN93 ; Ozeki95 ; Ozeki96 ; Ozeki96a ; Ozeki97 ; OzekiI98 . It was firstly applied to the Ising SG models Nishim81 , and provides the internal energy and an upper bound on the specific heat exactly as non-singular functions of the temperature on the Nishimori line in the temperature-randomness phase diagram. Further, it is proven that the boundary between the FM and non-FM phases in the temperature lower than the multicritical point (MCP, see Fig. 1) at which paramagnetic (PM), FM and SG phases meet and the Nishimori line intersects, is vertical or re-entrant. Using a model with a modified probability distribution of randomness, the verticality is concluded Kitata92 , which implies the absence of re-entrance: Although the theory needs a plausible but unproved assumption on the thermodynamic behavior of the modified model, the result is consistent with other theories and experiments of Ising-like spin glasses BindeY86 . The gauge transformation has been applied to gauge glasses with various symmetries OzekiN93  including the $`U(1)`$ symmetry, i.e. the $`XY`$ gauge glass model. The same results as in the Ising case are derived. The absence of re-entrance is concluded for any dimensional model with a plausible assumption for the modified model, if the FM (or KT) phase is stable in disordered regime. The gauge transformation is also extended to dynamical systems Ozeki95 ; Ozeki96a ; Ozeki97 ; OzekiI98 . For the Ising SG case, some important relations are derived for nonequilibrium auto-correlation functions, order parameter and energy relaxations. They provide discussions on the absence of re-entrance, the regime of the mixed phase in the phase diagram, the multi-critical dynamics, and the equivalence of two nonequilibrium processes in the SG phase.

The dynamics is one of most important aspects in disordered systems because of the slow relaxation BindeY86 ; FischH91 . In the case of standard SG theory, dynamical properties have been investigated for the mean field model SompoZ81 , for the Griffiths phase in short-range systems RandSP85 ; Ogiels85 ; TakanM95 ; KomoHT95 , for the aging phenomenon KoperH88 ; FisheH88 ; SibanH89 ; Rieger93 ; CugliK94  and so on. The aging phenomenon Struik78  is a typical realization of slow dynamics, especially for SG materials LundEA83 ; NordEA87 ; VincHO92 ; LeflEA94 . In contrast to the standard SG systems, not many studies on the dynamical properties have been performed for gauge glass systems. It would be helpful for future investigations to present exact results including dynamical properties.

In this paper, we study the gauge transformation for dynamical systems of the gauge glass model. In the static case, the gauge symmetric models can be treated in the same manner as the Ising SG OzekiN93 . It is also straightforward to apply the dynamical gauge theory for the Ising SG Ozeki95 ; Ozeki97 ; OzekiI98 , in which the stochastic dynamics is treated, to the gauge glass model. Since the gauge glass system has a continuous spin space, one can consider a deterministic dynamics with equations of motion, which is also treated in the present theory. Several exact relations are derived among dynamical quantities such as equilibrium and nonequilibrium auto-correlation functions, relaxation functions of order parameter and internal energy. Using them, we discuss physical properties including the aging, the multicritical dynamics, dynamics in the SG, a possible mixed phase and Griffiths phase, and the absence of re-entrant transition in two or higher dimensions.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In section II, the gauge glass model associated with the plane rotator is introduced. The probability distribution is chosen so that the system has the gauge symmetry. The results of the static gauge theory is summarized. In section III, a stochastic dynamics is introduced using the master equation formalism, and some dynamical quantities are defined. The gauge transformation is introduced for this system. Some exact relations are derived for dynamical quantities. In section IV, physical properties are discussed by use of the exact relations obtained. In section V, equations of motion are introduced for the same gauge symmetric system, and the gauge transformation is applied. It is shown that the same relations can be derived for several choices of dynamics. The last section is devoted to the summary.

## II Gauge Symmetric Gauge Glass Model

The Hamiltonian we consider is

$$=J\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi },𝝎)=J\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\omega _{ij}),$$
(1)
where $`\varphi _i,\omega _{ij}[\pi ,\pi )`$. The set $`\mathit{\varphi }=(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _N)`$ represents a configuration of total $`N`$ spins, and $`𝝎`$ represents a configuration of total $`N_\mathrm{B}`$ quenched random variables associated to each bond. The summation of $`ij`$ is taken over all bonds; we make no restrictions on the type or the dimensions of lattice, whereas one may suppose a usual nearest-neighbor interaction on the $`d`$-dimensional hypercubic lattice. The variable $`\omega _{ij}`$ has an odd property; $`\omega _{ji}=\omega _{ij}`$ 222 The sign of $`\omega _{ij}`$ in eq. (1) is not important, since the distribution of $`\omega _{ij}`$ (4) is an even function.. For a particular bond configuration, the thermal equilibrium distribution at temperature $`T=J/k_\mathrm{B}K`$ is given by

$$\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi };K,𝝎)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(K\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi };𝝎)\right)}{Z(K;𝝎)}.$$
(2)
The partition function is defined by

$$Z(K;𝝎)=d\mathit{\varphi }\mathrm{exp}\left(K\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi };𝝎)\right),$$
(3)
where the integration of $`\mathrm{d}\mathit{\varphi }`$ denotes the multiple integrations for the $`N`$ spin variables $`\varphi _i`$. The probability distribution for randomness is taken as

$$P(𝝎;D)=\underset{ij}{}\frac{\mathrm{exp}(D\mathrm{cos}\omega _{ij})}{2\pi I_0(D)}=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(D\stackrel{~}{}(𝐅;𝝎)\right)}{Y(D)},$$
(4)
where $`𝐅=(0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ represents an all-aligned spin state, $`I_n(D)`$ is the modified Bessel function, and

$$Y(D)\left(2\pi I_0(D)\right)^{N_\mathrm{B}}.$$
(5)
In this distribution, which is central to the present paper (see also Fig. 2 below), the variable $`D`$ controls the strength of randomness; $`D=0`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ correspond to the full random case and the non-random case, respectively. The random average is denoted by

$$[\mathrm{}]_\mathrm{c}=d𝝎P(𝝎;D)\mathrm{}.$$
(6)
The integration of $`\mathrm{d}𝝎`$ denotes the multiple integrations for the $`N_B`$ random variables $`\omega _{ij}`$. In the following, for simplicity, we will sometimes omit the dependence on spin set $`\mathit{\varphi }`$, bond set $`𝝎`$, inverse temperature $`K`$ and/or randomness $`D`$ from functions defined above, if they are trivial or unimportant.

The gauge transformations for functions of $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ and $`𝝎`$ are defined by

$`U_𝝍`$ $`:`$ $`\varphi _i\varphi _i\psi _i`$ (7)
$`V_𝝍`$ $`:`$ $`\omega _{ij}\omega _{ij}+\psi _i\psi _j,`$ (8)
where $`𝝍=(\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _N)`$ is an arbitrary state of $`N`$ spins. Each set of transformation forms a group. While variables $`\varphi _i`$ and $`\omega _{ij}`$ possibly take values out of the domain, $`[\pi ,\pi )`$, in this transformation, we always identify them with a residue of $`2\pi `$. The Hamiltonian (1) is invariant under the transformation $`U_𝝍V_𝝍`$:

$$U_𝝍V_𝝍\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi };𝝎)=\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi };𝝎).$$
(9)
The gauge transformation of the distribution (4) is given by

$$V_𝝍P(𝝎;D)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(D\stackrel{~}{}(𝝍;𝝎)\right)}{Y(D)}=\frac{Z(D;𝝎)}{Y(D)}\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝝍;D,𝝎),$$
(10)
where we note that the spin set in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and the temperature are different from the usual ones. Another important property in the theory is the invariant integral for $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ and $`𝝎`$:

$`{\displaystyle d\mathit{\varphi }\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d\mathit{\varphi }U_𝝍\mathrm{}},`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle d𝝎\mathrm{}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝝎V_𝝍\mathrm{}}`$ (12)
Using eqs. (9) and (10), one can show OzekiN93  that the partition function is gauge invariant under $`V_𝝍`$,

$$V_𝝍Z(K;𝝎)=Z(K;𝝎),$$
(13)
providing the invariance of thermal distribution,

$$U_𝝍V_𝝍\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi };K,𝝎)=\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi };K,𝝎).$$
(14)
Then, we obtain the gauge invariance of the averaged energy;

$$V_𝝍\stackrel{~}{}_K=\stackrel{~}{}_K.$$
(15)
Note that we will use the terminology ”gauge invariant” only for functions of $`𝝎`$ invariant under $`V_𝝍`$. Since the lhs of eq. (12) is independent of $`𝝍`$, it is convenient to derive another expression of random average instead of eq. (6);

$$[\mathrm{}]_\mathrm{c}=d𝝎d𝝍\frac{Z(D;𝝎)}{(2\pi )^NY(D)}\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝝍;D,𝝎)V_𝝍\mathrm{}.$$
(16)
The random average of gauge invariant function $`Q(𝝎)`$ can be expressed as

$$\left[Q(𝝎)\right]_\mathrm{c}=d𝝎\frac{Z(D;𝝎)}{(2\pi )^NY(D)}Q(𝝎).$$
(17)
In three or higher dimensions, the topology of the $`K`$-$`D`$ phase diagram is expected as in Fig. 1, where PM, FM and SG phases appear. A possible Griffiths phase is also indicated. In two dimensions, the KT phase appears instead of the FM phase. The SG phase disappears or becomes a possible KT-like SG phase. The dashed line $`K=D`$ is called the Nishimori-line around which following properties have been found from the static gauge theory OzekiN93 ; Ozeki96a :

* The energy and the upper bound of the specific heat are expressed by analytic functions of temperature;

$`E(D,D)`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}D}}\mathrm{ln}Y(D)=N_\mathrm{B}J{\displaystyle \frac{I_1(D)}{I_0(D)}},`$ (18)
$`C(D,D)`$ $``$ $`k_\mathrm{B}D^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm{d}D^2}}\mathrm{ln}Y(D).`$ (19)
* The FM and SG order parameters coincide with each other;

$$m(D,D)=q(D,D).$$
(20)
Thus, no SG phase appears on this line, since $`m=0`$ in the SG phase.
* The line is likely to intersect the MCP of PM, FM and SG phases.
* The phase boundary between the FM (or KT) and the SG (or PM) phases below this line must be vertical to the $`D`$-axis or re-entrant OzekiN93 . A plausible argnument can be made for the verticality.

It is remarked that the probability distribution function (4) is different from the usual Gaussian form, which has been studied in many cases. This is because that we need a gauge symmetric form in the theory, which restricts the distribution function relating to the Hamiltonian as in eq. (4). It is shown that the same properties can also be proven for another gauge symmetric $`U(1)`$ model, the Villain model Villai75  with Gaussian random gauge, in which the local Boltzmann factor is given by

$$\mathrm{e}^{V(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\omega _{ij})}=\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mathrm{e}^{K(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\omega _{ij}2\pi n)^2/2}.$$
(21)
We consider that physical properties are equivalent in these gauge glass models irrespective of the detail of distribution $`P`$. In fact, as seen in Fig. 2, the shape of the function (4) is quite similar to the Gaussian. As will be seen later, the present theory can be applied to the Villain model in the case of the stochastic dynamics in section III. However, we proceed our present theory by the rotator model. It is somehow difficult to apply in the case of the deterministic dynamics, since the explicit form of the Hamiltonian, which is necessary in the equations of motion, is not unique.

## III Stochastic Dynamics

First, we consider the stochastic dynamics following the results of Ising SG Ozeki95 ; Ozeki97 ; OzekiI98 .

### III.1 Master Equation

We consider a Markov process for a fixed bond configuration, in which the density of state evolves with the master equation VanKam81 ,

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\rho _t(\mathit{\varphi })=d\mathit{\varphi }^{}\left\{W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})\rho _t(\mathit{\varphi }^{})W(\mathit{\varphi }^{}|\mathit{\varphi })\rho _t(\mathit{\varphi })\right\}.$$
(22)
The transition probability $`W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})`$ is non-negative and satisfies the condition of the detailed balance,

$$W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{};K,𝝎)=W(\mathit{\varphi }^{}|\mathit{\varphi })\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi };K,𝝎),$$
(23)
which guarantees the stability of the equilibrium distribution $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}`$. The condition (23) is automatically satisfied if one uses the expression with a symmetric matrix $`w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})`$:

$$W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})=\frac{w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})}{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{})}.$$
(24)
The function $`w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})`$ depends on the detail of dynamics considered. As in Ozeki95 , I assume

$$w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})=w_0\delta _1[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi })^{\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}])}\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{})^{\mathrm{\Theta }(\mathrm{\Delta }[\mathit{\varphi }^{},\mathit{\varphi }])}$$
(25)
for the single-spin-flip Metropolis dynamics MeRRTT53 , and

$$w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})=w_0\underset{i}{}\frac{\delta _{1i}[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi })\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{})}{d\mathit{\varphi }^{\prime \prime }\delta _{1i}[\mathit{\varphi }^{\prime \prime },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{\prime \prime })}$$
(26)
for the single-spin-flip heat-bath dynamics, where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ denotes the Heaviside function,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi };𝝎)\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi }^{};𝝎)$$
(27)
is the energy difference of two states,

$`\delta _1[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta _{1i}[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]`$ (28)
$`\delta _{1i}[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ji}{}}\delta (\varphi _j\varphi _j^{})`$ (29)
are the single-spin-flip and the $`i`$th-spin-flip operators, respectively. Note that the denominator of the summand in eq. (26) is unchanged if the variable $`\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$ in the argument of $`\delta _{1i}[\mathit{\varphi }^{\prime \prime },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]`$ is replaced by $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ providing the symmetry of $`w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})`$.

Since the diagonal element plays no role both in eqs. (22) and (23), one may define it in such a way as

$$W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})=\frac{w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})}{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{})}\delta (\mathit{\varphi }\mathit{\varphi }^{})d\mathit{\varphi }^{\prime \prime }\frac{w(\mathit{\varphi }^{\prime \prime }|\mathit{\varphi })}{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi })}.$$
(30)
Then, the master equation (22) is reduced to

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}\rho _t(\mathit{\varphi })=d\mathit{\varphi }^{}W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})\rho _t(\mathit{\varphi }^{}),$$
(31)
and the solution is given by

$$\rho _t(\mathit{\varphi })=d\mathit{\varphi }^{}\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}\rho _0(\mathit{\varphi }^{}).$$
(32)
The function $`\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$ is the integration kernel for time-evolution defined by

$`\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{t^n}{n!}}\mathit{\varphi }\left|𝐖^n\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{},`$ (33)
$`\mathit{\varphi }\left|𝐖^n\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{d}\mathit{\varphi }^{(\mathrm{})}\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}W(\mathit{\varphi }^{(k+1)}|\mathit{\varphi }^{(k)})},`$ (34)
where $`\mathit{\varphi }^{(n)}=\mathit{\varphi }`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }^{(0)}=\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$. It has been proven that all eigenvalues of the operator $`𝐖`$ with (23) are real and negative except the zero eigenvalue corresponding to the equilibrium distribution VanKam81 . Thus, all solutions with any initial conditions tend to the equilibrium distribution as $`t\mathrm{}`$.

### III.2 Dynamical Processes

We examine two nonequilibrium processes I and II in Fig. 3. The process I is related to the zero-field-cooling (ZFC). At the initial time $`t=0`$, the system is kept in the equilibrium state with a temperature $`D`$ and zero field; hereafter, we use a terminology “temperature” for $`K`$ and $`D`$ instead of “inverse temperature”. The temperature is immediately changed (usually quenched) and the system relaxes in a heat bath with another temperature $`K`$ in $`t>0`$. The average for dynamical ensembles in this process is denoted by $`\mathrm{}_K^D`$. The process II is related to the field quench (FQ) NordEA87 ; Rieger93 . The system starts from an all-aligned state $`𝐅`$ at $`t=0`$ and relaxes in the same heat bath as in the process I in $`t>0`$; the average is denoted by $`\mathrm{}_K^𝐅`$. Since the all-aligned state provides the strong-field limit, this represents the process with a field quenched from $`\mathrm{}`$ to zero at $`t=0`$. Note that the FQ is not equivalent to the field cooling in which the applied field is weaker and is quenched after the waiting.

We define the waiting-time dependence of nonequilibrium auto-correlation functions Rieger93 ; CugliK94  for the processes I and II. In the language of master equation, that for the process I is expressed as

$`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D={\displaystyle d\mathit{\varphi }d\mathit{\varphi }^{}d\mathit{\varphi }_0\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}\mathit{\varphi }^{}\left|\mathrm{e}^{t_\mathrm{w}𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }_0\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }_0;D)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _i^{}}}.`$
(35)
When $`K=D`$, the average $`\mathrm{}_D^D`$ represents the dynamical average in the equilibrium process $`\mathrm{}_D^{\mathrm{eq}}`$. In this case, the auto-correlation function (35) becomes independent of $`t_\mathrm{w}`$ since the thermal distribution $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\varphi ;K,𝝎)`$ is an eigenfunction of $`W(\mathit{\varphi }^{}|\mathit{\varphi })`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_D^D`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_D^{\mathrm{eq}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d\mathit{\varphi }d\mathit{\varphi }^{}\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{};K)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _i^{}}}.`$
If one defines an auto-correlation function for the process relaxed from a fixed state $`𝝍`$ — let us call this process the process II’ —

$$\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝝍=d\mathit{\varphi }d\mathit{\varphi }^{}\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}\mathit{\varphi }^{}\left|\mathrm{e}^{t_\mathrm{w}𝐖}\right|𝝍\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _i^{}},$$
(37)
that for the process II is expressed as $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅`$, and eq. (35) is rewritten as

$$\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D=d𝝍\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝝍;D)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝝍.$$
(38)
In the long-time limit $`(t\mathrm{})`$, the thermodynamic limit of $`\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_K^{\mathrm{eq}}\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ converges to the SG order parameter $`q_{\mathrm{EA}}`$, which is non-vanishing in FM or SG phases BindeY86 ; FischH91 . If one sets $`t_\mathrm{w}=0`$, equation (37) with $`𝝍=𝐅`$ becomes

$$\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)}_K^𝐅=d\mathit{\varphi }\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|𝐅\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i},$$
(39)
which is the FM order parameter at time $`t`$ relaxed from the complete FM state, $`𝐅`$, at $`t=0`$. When $`t\mathrm{}`$, the thermodynamic limit of $`\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)}_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ approaches the spontaneous ordering. Note that all quantities defined above containing the exponential $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i}`$ have real values in the average because of the spin-flip symmetry, $`\varphi _i\varphi _i+\pi `$, for the Hamiltonian and the matrix $`W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})`$.

Another relaxation functions, the nonequilibrium relaxations of exchange energy, are defined as

$`(t)_K^D`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle d\mathit{\varphi }d\mathit{\varphi }^{}\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }^{};D,𝝎)\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi };𝝎)}`$ (40)
$`(t)_K^𝐅`$ $`=`$ $`J{\displaystyle d\mathit{\varphi }\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|𝐅\stackrel{~}{}(\mathit{\varphi };𝝎)}.`$ (41)
### III.3 Gauge Transformation

Let us examine the gauge transformation of the functions defined above. We introduce the transformation for $`\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$,

$$U_𝝍^{}:\varphi _i^{}\varphi _i^{}\psi _i,$$
(42)
to show the invariance

$$U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}=\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}.$$
(43)
From eqs. (9)-(13), it is easy to see that $`\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi };K,𝝎)`$, $`\delta _{1i}[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }[\mathit{\varphi },\mathit{\varphi }^{}]`$ are invariant under $`U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍`$. This yields the invariance

$$U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})=w(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})$$
(44)
in the case of the Metropolis (25) and the heat-bath dynamics (26). It is natural to restrict the dynamics in such a way as eq. (44) holds. This yields the invariance,

$$U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{})=W(\mathit{\varphi }|\mathit{\varphi }^{}),$$
(45)
where the invariant integral for $`\mathit{\varphi }^{\prime \prime }`$ like eq. (11) is necessary to derive for the case $`\mathit{\varphi }=\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$. Let us consider term by term in the expansion of $`\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$, eq. (34). Similarly to $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$, the gauge transformations for $`\mathit{\varphi }^{(k)}`$ $`(k=1,2,\mathrm{},n1)`$ are introduced as

$$U_𝝍^{(k)}:\varphi _i^{(k)}\varphi _i^{(k)}\psi _i.$$
(46)
Then, equation (45) with the invariant integral for $`\mathit{\varphi }^{(k)}`$ like (11) leads to

$`U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\mathit{\varphi }\left|𝐖^n\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{d}\mathit{\varphi }^{(\mathrm{})}U_𝝍^{(\mathrm{})}\right)U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}W(\mathit{\varphi }^{(k+1)}|\mathit{\varphi }^{(k)})}`$ (47)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\mathrm{d}\mathit{\varphi }^{(\mathrm{})}\right)\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}W(\mathit{\varphi }^{(k+1)}|\mathit{\varphi }^{(k)})},`$
providing the invariance (43).

From eqs. (14) and (43) with the invariant integral (11) taken into account, one can show that the auto-correlation function for the process I is gauge invariant as

$`V_𝝍\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_K^{\mathrm{eq}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_K^{\mathrm{eq}},`$ (48)
$`V_𝝍\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D,`$ (49)
while that for the process II is transformed as

$`V_𝝍\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d\mathit{\varphi }d\mathit{\varphi }^{}U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}\mathit{\varphi }^{}\left|\mathrm{e}^{t_\mathrm{w}𝐖}\right|𝐅\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _i^{}}}`$ (50)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝝍`$
where we use the invariant integral (11), and

$$U_𝝍V_𝝍\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}=U_𝝍^{}\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}=\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}+𝝍$$
(51)
obtained from eq. (43). The variables $`𝝍`$ and $`\mathit{\varphi }^{}+𝝍`$ represent the spin states, $`(\psi _1,\psi _2,\mathrm{},\psi _N)`$ and $`(\varphi _1^{}+\psi _1,\varphi _2^{}+\psi _2,\mathrm{},\varphi _N^{}+\psi _N)`$, respectively. Using eqs. (16), (38) and (50), we derive

$$\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}=d𝝎\frac{Z(D;𝝎)}{(2\pi )^NY(D)}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D.$$
(52)
Because of the gauge invariance (49), equation (52) is rewritten by eq. (17) as

$$\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}=\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D\right]_\mathrm{c}$$
(53)
for any waiting time $`t_\mathrm{w}`$, any time interval $`t`$, any temperature $`K`$ and any degree of randomness $`D`$. We call it the “aging relation”, since it relates aging phenomena in two distinct processes whatever waiting-time dependence is essential for the aging. From the invariance (9), similar relation can be derived for the energy defined in eqs. (40) and (41):

$$\left[(t)_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}=\left[(t)_K^D\right]_\mathrm{c}.$$
(54)
## IV Physical Properties

The aging relation (53) and eq. (54) include parameters $`K`$ and $`D`$ characterizing the relaxation in $`t>0`$. For each phase, one can examine the physical meaning of the relation by choosing $`(K,D)`$ appropriately. Note that the initial temperature of the process I is always located on $`K=D`$.

### IV.1 Dynamics in the SG Phase

First, let us consider the region with sufficiently strong randomness (small $`D`$) and sufficiently low temperatures (large $`K`$), where the SG phase appears if it exists. In such a region, $`D`$ indicates a high temperature (small $`D`$), and the relaxations $`\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\left[(t)_K^D\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ for the process I describe a ZFC process (cooled immediately from a high temperature with $`D`$). On the other hand, $`\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ and $`\left[(t)_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ for the process II are regarded as the relaxations in a FQ process (demagnetization from the strong field limit). Thus, relations (53) and (54) imply the equivalence of the dynamics especially the aging phenomenon in the ZFC and the FQ processes. The same relation was pointed out in real SG materials NordEA87 ; LeflEA94 . At a glance, this relation expresses a trivial fact, since both initial states are located in the PM phase and both systems relax into the SG phase. However, the equivalence at any waiting time, which means the equivalence of the dynamical structure at any stage of relaxation, is non-trivial.

In the case of sufficiently weak randomness (large $`D`$), the initial states of both nonequilibrium processes represent almost the same spin state (complete FM state). Then, equations (53) and (54) show a proper phenomenon.

### IV.2 Dynamics on $`K=D`$

Next, we examine the dynamics on the line $`K=D`$, where the dynamical average $`\mathrm{}_K^D`$ becomes the average in the equilibrium process $`\mathrm{}_D^{\mathrm{eq}}`$. From eqs. (III.2) and (53), we derive

$$\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_D^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}=\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_D^{\mathrm{eq}}\right]_\mathrm{c}.$$
(55)
If one sets $`t_\mathrm{w}=0`$, equation (55) yields

$$\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)}_D^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}=\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_D^{\mathrm{eq}}\right]_\mathrm{c},$$
(56)
which implies the equivalence of FM and SG orderings (if one takes the limit of $`t\mathrm{}`$). Since, in the SG phase, the SG order remains finite whereas the FM order disappears, eq. (56) indicates the absence of the SG phase on the line $`K=D`$ as in the analysis of the static orderings (20) OzekiN93 .

Equations (55) and (56) also imply the equivalence of the equilibrium and nonequilibrium relaxations. The internal energy of the initial state $`𝐅`$ is identical with that on $`K=D`$, which is equal to the equilibrium energy on $`K=D`$ (18) OzekiN93 . It is easy to see that, the rhs of eq. (54) is independent of time $`t`$ if $`K=D`$;

$$\left[(t)_D^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}=N_\mathrm{B}J\frac{I_1(D)}{I_0(D)}.$$
(57)
Since the equilibrium energy is an increasing function of the temperature, we expect that $`\left[(t)_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ is an increasing function of $`t`$ above $`K=D`$ and a decreasing one below it.

As seen from eqs. (55) and (56), the auto-correlation function in the FQ process is independent of the waiting time, which suggests the absence of aging on $`K=D`$. In the region below the MCP on $`K=D`$, where the spontaneous ordering appears, it is not clear that the FQ process is appropriate for the observation of the aging, since the initial all-aligned state is not so different from the final equilibrium state with broken symmetry. While the rotational symmetry is initially broken in the FQ process, the dynamical behavior is equivalent to that in the equilibrium (symmetric) process — see eq. (55). Thus, we assume that the FQ process exhibits an aging feature even in such a symmetry-broken region.

### IV.3 Mixed Phase and Griffiths Phase

The aging has been considered an inherent property in the SG phase from experimental LundEA83 ; NordEA87 ; VincHO92 ; LeflEA94  and theoretical KoperH88 ; FisheH88 ; SibanH89 ; Rieger93 ; CugliK94  view points. Since the aging phenomenon is a typical observation of the complex phase space for slow dynamics, it could occur in other complex phases. In such a phase, the aging would also be inherent, which means that it occurs whole of the phase when it is observed in some parts of the phase.

Following the results of the SK model and experimental observations BindeY86  for SG phenomenon, one may consider a possibility of the mixed phase between the FM and SG phases even in the gauge glass systems. It is natural to consider that the aging occurs in the mixed phase, since the SG feature in the mixed phase provides typical slow dynamics which reveals the aging. If the aging is inherent in the mixed phase, this indicates that the line $`K=D`$ does not enter the mixed phase. This restricts the topology of the phase diagram: it must appear below $`K=D`$ even if it exists.

In the Ising SG systems, it has also been pointed out that there exists a dynamically singular phase called the Griffiths phase Griffi69  between the critical temperature of the pure system and the phase boundary of low temperature phase (the FM or the SG) RandSP85 ; Ogiels85 ; TakanM95 ; KomoHT95  — see Fig. 1. The possibility of the Griffiths phase has not yet been discussed much in the gauge glass systems. Figure 1 is proposed just following an analogy with the dilute ferromagnet Griffi69 . Concerning to the Griffiths phase, two cases can be considered to understand the present result if the aging is an inherent property: (a) There is no aging whole of the Griffiths phase, if the line $`K=D`$ intersects the Griffiths phase as in Fig. 1. (b) There is no Griffiths phase at least around $`K=D`$. In the former case, even if slow dynamics is observed in the Griffiths phase, it is quite different from that in the SG phase DerriW87 . The latter case allows the existence of the Griffiths phase below $`K=D`$. Another possibility is that (c) the aging is not inherent at least in the Griffiths phase. This means that the aging occurs in some parts of the phase. Although it is not obvious which is correct in the present framework, the above result restricts the existence of the aging phenomenon and the region of the Griffiths phase, and supports future investigations of them.

### IV.4 Multicritical Dynamics

Let us consider the critical relaxation at the MCP. At the FM critical point, in general, the FM order parameter decays in a power-law asymptotically as

$$m(t)[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)}_K^𝐅]_\mathrm{c}t^{\lambda _m}.$$
(58)
Then, the dynamic scaling hypothesis Suzuki76

$$m(t,\epsilon ,L)=L^{\beta /\nu }\overline{m}(L^{1/\nu }\epsilon ,L^zt)\epsilon =(K_\mathrm{c}K)/K_\mathrm{c}$$
(59)
reveals the relation of exponents

$$\lambda _m=\frac{\beta }{z\nu }.$$
(60)
On the other hand, the equilibrium auto-correlation function decays in a power-law as

$$q(t)\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_K^{\mathrm{eq}}\right]_\mathrm{c}t^{\lambda _q}$$
(61)
at both FM and SG critical points. At the FM critical point, the exponent $`\lambda _q`$ is associated with the FM criticality; a similar dynamic scaling reveals

$$\lambda _q=\frac{2\beta }{z\nu }.$$
(62)
Thus, $`\lambda _m`$ and $`\lambda _q`$ are twice different in the FM case. At the SG critical point, it is associated with the SG criticality; the dynamic scaling hypothesis for the SG ordering

$$q(t,\epsilon ,L)=L^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }/\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\overline{q}(L^{1/\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\epsilon ,L^{\stackrel{~}{z}}t),$$
(63)
where tilde exponents are those for SG ordering, yields

$$\lambda _q=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{\stackrel{~}{z}\stackrel{~}{\nu }}.$$
(64)
The scaling field is not unique in the random case. One can define another scaling form instead of (59) with another scaling field such as $`(D_\mathrm{c}D)/D_\mathrm{c}`$. At the MCP, the scaling field $`\epsilon `$ can be chosen both as $`\epsilon =(D_\mathrm{c}D)/D_\mathrm{c}`$ and as $`\epsilon =(K_\mathrm{c}K)/K_\mathrm{c}`$ since they are same order around the MCP on $`K=D`$. Note that critical exponents $`\beta `$ and $`\nu `$ depend on the way to approach the critical point. Thus, they are defined along $`K=D`$ in eqs. (59) and (60) for the MCP case. On the other hand, the ratio $`\beta /\nu `$ and the exponent $`z`$ are independent of the scaling field but depend on the critical point itself. On $`K=D`$, we have derived the relation (56). This gives

$$L^{\beta /\nu }\overline{m}(L^{1/\nu }\epsilon ,L^zt)=L^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }/\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\overline{q}(L^{1/\stackrel{~}{\nu }}\epsilon ,L^{\stackrel{~}{z}}t),$$
(65)
for any $`L`$, $`t`$ and $`\epsilon `$ ($`K`$ or $`D`$) providing

$`\lambda _m`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _q,`$ (66)
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{z},`$ (67)
$`\beta /\nu `$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }/\stackrel{~}{\nu }.`$ (68)
Note that the line $`K=D`$ does not enter the SG phase but just touch it at the MCP OzekiN93 . The dynamical exponent $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and the ratio $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }/\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ are independent of the way to approach the criticality, and characterized by the criticality itself. Therefore, exponents $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }/\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ are associated with the SG ordering at the MCP. Equations (66)-(68) relate exponents of FM ordering and SG ordering at the MCP. The relations for FM dynamic exponents, (60) and (62), would keep along the phase boundary from the pure case up to the MCP in Fig. 1, and so does the relation for SG ones (64) from $`D=0`$ up to the MCP; it is not clear whether the values of exponents are universal or not.

### IV.5 Absence of Re-entrance

Here, we discuss the asymptotic behavior of the auto-correlation function for the process I with $`t_\mathrm{w}=0`$, $`\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_K^D\right]_\mathrm{c}`$, which satisfies

$$\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)}_D^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}=\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_K^D\right]_\mathrm{c},$$
(69)
to show the absence of re-entrant transition, i.e. the verticality of the FM boundary. We present the following two propositions for it. Since the long-time limit of this function is expected to behave a kind of order parameter, (i) the asymptotic behavior should be prescribed by both phases where the initial point $`(D,D)`$ and the final point $`(K,D)`$ locate. In Appendix A, we mention that the average of gauge invariant function can not detect the FM boundary. Because of the gauge invariance (48), (ii) the asymptotic behavior is independent of whether $`(D,D)`$ and $`(K,D)`$ are FM or not. On this point of view, the behavior of $`\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(0)}_K^D\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ can change only at which $`(D,D)`$ or $`(K,D)`$ intersects the PM boundary. On the other hand, it approaches an FM order parameter because of eq. (69), implying that the asymptotic behavior changes depending on if $`(K,D)`$ is FM or not. At a glance, this contradicts with (ii) on the FM boundary below the PM boundary. However, they are not in conflict with each other if the line $`K=D`$ intersects the MCP and the FM phase boundary is vertical in the temperature below it. In this case, when $`(K,D)`$ locates on the FM boundary, $`(D,D)`$ locates on the PM boundary simultaneously (i.e. the MCP).

In two dimensions, the same argument can be made if one considers the asymptotic decay of relaxation functions as an order parameter for the KT phase instead of the long time limit of them. The order parameter relaxation $`\left[\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t)}_K^𝐅\right]_\mathrm{c}`$ decays exponentially in the PM phase while it decays algebraically in the KT phase. Thus, the above argument is recognized as the statement that the KT boundary is vertical below the MCP.

## V Deterministic Dynamics

In section III, we treat the stochastic dynamics obeying the master equation with continuous time (22). The results can also be applied to the discrete time interval case, which is used in Monte Carlo simulations. Since the spin variable is continuous in the gauge glass model, one can define equations of motion. In this section, we discuss the case of the deterministic dynamics like in molecular dynamics simulations.

It is noted that the essential features for a physical quantity $`Q`$ to derive relations like (53) and (54) are the gauge invariance

$$V_𝝍Q_K^D=Q_K^D$$
(70)
for the process I as eq. (49), and the transformation rule

$$V_𝝍Q_K^𝐅=Q_K^𝝍$$
(71)
for the process II as eq. (50). By use of eqs. (16) and (17), they reveal the relation

$$[Q_K^𝐅]_\mathrm{c}=[Q_K^D]_\mathrm{c}$$
(72)
irrespective of the detail of dynamics.

### V.1 Microcanonical Dynamics

Let us introduce a conjugate momentum $`L_i`$ for each spin variable $`\varphi _i`$ and consider the total Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{tot}}=J\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi },𝝎)`$ including the kinetic energy;

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi },𝝎)=\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\omega _{ij})+\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}L_i^2.$$
(73)
The thermal distribution for this system is given by

$$\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(K\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi },𝝎)\right)}{Z_{\mathrm{tot}}(K;𝝎)}=\mu _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝐋;K)\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi };K,𝝎),$$
(74)
where the partition function of $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is defined by

$$Z_{\mathrm{tot}}(K;𝝎)=d𝐋d\mathit{\varphi }\mathrm{exp}\left(K\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi },𝝎)\right).$$
(75)
The integration of $`\mathrm{d}𝐋`$ denotes the multiple integrations for $`N`$ momentum variables. For the spin variable, the thermal distribution of $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is identical with that in the static case (2). The function $`\mu _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝐋;K)`$ is the thermal distribution for momentum variables;

$$\mu _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝐋;K)\left(\frac{K}{2\pi }\right)^{N/2}\mathrm{exp}(\frac{K}{2}\underset{i}{}L_i^2).$$
(76)
The equations of motion for $`\varphi _i`$ and $`L_i`$ are given by the canonical equations of Hamilton;

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_i}{t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _i}}_{\mathrm{tot}}=J{\displaystyle \underset{(ji)}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\omega _{ij}),`$ (77a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i}{t}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{L_i}}_{\mathrm{tot}}=JL_i,`$ (77b)
where the summation of $`(ji)`$ takes for all sites coupled with the $`i`$ site.

Note that the conjugate momentum $`L_i`$, differential operators $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{L_i}}`$ and $`{\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi _i}}`$ are invariant under gauge transformations $`U_𝝍`$ and $`V_𝝍`$. Thus, the canonical equations (77) are also invariant under the gauge transformation $`U_𝝍V_𝝍`$. This means that if $`(\overline{𝐋}(t),\overline{\mathit{\varphi }}(t))`$ represents the solution for a bond configuration $`𝝎`$ with an initial condition $`(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$, the solution for the bond configuration $`V_𝝍𝝎`$ with the initial condition $`(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0𝝍)`$ is given by $`(\overline{𝐋}(t),\overline{\mathit{\varphi }}(t)𝝍)`$. This implies the transformation rules

$`U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\overline{\varphi }_i(t;𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)`$ $`=\overline{\varphi }_i(t;𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\psi _i,`$ (78a)
$`U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\overline{L}_i(t;𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)`$ $`=\overline{L}_i(t;𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎),`$ (78b)
where $`U_𝝍^{}`$ is the transformation operated to $`\mathit{\varphi }_0`$. It is remarked that once the transformation for $`\mathit{\varphi }_0`$ is operated, it affects $`\mathit{\varphi }(t)`$ at any time, since the solution is continuous in time. Thus, the operation $`U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍`$ in eqs. (78) can be recognized as $`U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍`$ in the stochastic dynamics.

Let us define dynamical averages like eqs. (35)-(37). Since the dynamics is deterministic, the dynamical average is performed by the average over the initial condition $`(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$. When the initial distribution is in equilibrium, the temperature is unchanged since the total energy is conserved. The equilibrium dynamics with temperature $`K`$, $`\mathrm{}_K^{\mathrm{eq}}=\mathrm{}_K^K`$, is defined as

$$\mathrm{}_K^{\mathrm{eq}}=d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\mu _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝐋_0;K)\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)\mathrm{}.$$
(79)
Although the dynamics contains no dissipative factor in this formulation, we assume that the system shows a relaxation to an orbit which traces the thermal distribution when one prepares an appropriate nonequilibrium initial distribution $`\rho _0(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$. This is relating to the ergodic theorem. There are several ways to determine $`\rho _0(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$. One simplest way is to fix the total energy to the equilibrium value at the final temperature. In the process I, $`\mathrm{}_K^D`$, the initial distribution for spin variables is the thermal one with temperature $`D`$. The total energy is identical with the equilibrium value at temperature $`K`$ providing

$$\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎)=\frac{\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }_0;D,𝝎)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{I}(K,D,𝝎)}\delta \left(\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}_K\right).$$
(80)
where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}_K=N/2K+\stackrel{~}{}_K`$, and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{I}(K,D,𝝎)=d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }_0;D,𝝎)\delta \left(\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}_K\right)$$
(81)
is the volume of the phase space in the process I. When $`K=D`$, the dynamical average with $`\rho _\mathrm{I}`$ becomes identical with (79), because of the equivalence of the canonical and microcanonical ensembles in large enough systems. Similarly, the initial distribution for the process II’ is given by

$$\rho _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)=\frac{\delta (\mathit{\varphi }_0𝝍)}{\mathrm{\Omega }_𝝍(K,𝝎)}\delta \left(\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}_K\right).$$
(82)
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_𝝍(K,𝝎)=d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\delta (\mathit{\varphi }_0𝝍)\delta \left(\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{tot}}_K\right)$$
(83)
is the volume of the phase space in this process. Using these initial distributions, we define the correlation functions for processes I and II;

$`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\overline{\varphi }_i(t+t_\mathrm{w};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\mathrm{i}\overline{\varphi }_i(t_\mathrm{w};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)}},`$
$`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\rho _𝐅(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\overline{\varphi }_i(t+t_\mathrm{w};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\mathrm{i}\overline{\varphi }_i(t_\mathrm{w};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)}}.`$ (85)
The dynamical averages for the energy are also defined in a similar way.

Noting the invariance (14)-(15), the function $`\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎)`$ is invariant under the gauge transformation $`U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍`$;

$$U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎)=\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎).$$
(86)
This reveals the gauge invariance of $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D`$ for the process I as in the stochastic dynamics case (49). On the other hand, the transformation for $`\rho _𝐅`$ gives

$$U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\rho _𝐅(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)=\rho _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)$$
(87)
which reveals the transformation rule for the process II,

$`V_𝝍\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\rho _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\overline{\varphi }_i(t+t_\mathrm{w};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\mathrm{i}\overline{\varphi }_i(t_\mathrm{w};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)}}`$ (88)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝝍`$
Thus, form eqs. (70)-(72), equation (88) yields eq. (52) providing the aging relation (53). It is easy to see that eq. (54) also holds.

### V.2 Liouville Equation

To compare the formulations in stochastic and deterministic dynamics discussed above, it is instructive to consider the classical Liouville equation which describes the time evolution of distribution function $`\rho _t`$ under the canonical equations (77);

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}\rho _t}{\mathrm{d}t}=\underset{i}{}\left\{\frac{_{\mathrm{tot}}}{L_i}\frac{\rho _t}{\varphi _i}\frac{_{\mathrm{tot}}}{\varphi _i}\frac{\rho _t}{L_i}\right\}.$$
(89)
If we define the solution of eq. (89) for the initial condition $`\rho =\delta (𝐋𝐋_0)\delta (\mathit{\varphi }\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$ as $`G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)`$, this is nothing but a delta function

$$G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)=\delta \left(𝐋\overline{𝐋}(t;𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\right)\delta \left(\mathit{\varphi }\overline{\mathit{\varphi }}(t;𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\right),$$
(90)
since the orbit is deterministic. The function $`G`$ is called the Green function, and the solution for any initial distribution $`\rho _0(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi })`$ is given by

$$\rho _t(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝝎,[\rho _0])=d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\rho _0(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0),$$
(91)
where $`\rho _t`$ is a functional of the initial distribution indicated in the arguments as $`[\rho _0]`$.

The Green function $`G`$ plays a similar role with $`\mathit{\varphi }\left|\mathrm{e}^{t𝐖}\right|\mathit{\varphi }^{}`$ in the stochastic dynamics. It is easy to see that eqs. (78) and (90) yield the invariance,

$$U_𝝍U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;𝝎)=G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;𝝎),$$
(92)
which is the same relation as eq. (43). Since the differential operators and $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ is invariant under $`U_𝝍V_𝝍`$, when the function $`\rho _t`$ is the solution of eq. (89) with an initial condition $`\rho _0`$, the function $`U_𝝍V_𝝍\rho _t`$ is also the solution with the initial condition $`U_𝝍\rho _0`$: It is easily confirmed from eq. (91) that

$$U_𝝍V_𝝍\rho _t(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝝎,[\rho _0])=\rho _t(𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝝎,[U_𝝍\rho _0]).$$
(93)
Using the definitions above with the Green function, the auto-correlation functions are expressed as

$`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D={\displaystyle d𝐋d\mathit{\varphi }d𝐋^{}d\mathit{\varphi }^{}d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0}`$ (94)
$`G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋^{},\mathit{\varphi }^{},𝝎)G(t_\mathrm{w},𝐋^{},\mathit{\varphi }^{};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)`$ $`\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _i^{}},`$
for the process I, and

$`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅={\displaystyle d𝐋d\mathit{\varphi }d𝐋^{}d\mathit{\varphi }^{}d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0}`$ (95)
$`G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋^{},\mathit{\varphi }^{},𝝎)G(t_\mathrm{w},𝐋^{},\mathit{\varphi }^{};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)`$ $`\rho _𝐅(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _i^{}}.`$
for the process II. They are equivalent with eqs. (V.1) and (85). From invariance (92) and (86) with eq. (11), one finds that $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D`$ is gauge invariant and the other one obeys

$`V_𝝍\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^𝐅={\displaystyle d𝐋d\mathit{\varphi }d𝐋^{}d\mathit{\varphi }^{}d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0}`$ (96)
$`G(t,𝐋,\mathit{\varphi };𝐋^{},\mathit{\varphi }^{},𝝎)G(t_\mathrm{w},𝐋^{},\mathit{\varphi }^{};𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)`$ $`\rho _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _i^{}}.`$
Thus, form eqs. (70)-(72), this yields eq. (52) providing the aging relation (53).

### V.3 Canonical Initial Distribution

Another way to define the initial distributions instead of (80) and (82) is given by the canonical ensemble. In both processes, the initial distribution is determined so that the total energy distributes in terms of the thermal distribution with temperature $`K`$;

$$d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\rho _0(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)\delta \left(E_{\mathrm{tot}}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0,𝝎)\right)=\frac{𝒟_{\mathrm{tot}}(E;𝝎)\mathrm{e}^{KE/J}}{Z_{\mathrm{tot}}(K;𝝎)}.$$
(97)
where $`𝒟_{\mathrm{tot}}(E;𝝎)`$ is the density of state;

$$𝒟_{\mathrm{tot}}(E;𝝎)=d𝐋_0d\mathit{\varphi }_0\delta (E_{\mathrm{tot}}).$$
(98)
For the process I, $`\rho _0`$ has a form of

$$\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)=\mu _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎)\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }_0;D,𝝎).$$
(99)
Equation (97) implicitly defines the function $`\mu _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,D,𝝎)`$ depending on $`K`$, $`D`$ and $`𝝎`$. For the case $`K=D`$, $`\mu _\mathrm{I}=\mu _{\mathrm{eq}}(𝐋_0;D)`$ satisfies eq. (97). For the process II’, $`\rho _0`$ has a form of

$$\rho _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)=\mu _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)\delta (\mathit{\varphi }_0𝝍).$$
(100)
Equation (97) implicitly defines the function $`\mu _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)`$ depending on $`K`$ and $`𝝎`$.

Noting the invariance (9), (13) and (14) with the invariant integral (11), one finds that, if $`\rho _0(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$ satisfies eq. (97), so does $`U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\rho _0(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$. Since $`U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\mu _\mathrm{I}`$ instead of $`\mu _\mathrm{I}`$ satisfies the same equation as (97) with (99), the function $`\rho _\mathrm{I}(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$ is invariant under $`U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍`$. This reveals the gauge invariance of $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D`$ for the process I. On the other hand, if $`\rho _𝐅(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)`$ satisfies eq. (97) for the process II, so does

$$U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\rho _𝐅(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0)=[U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\mu _𝐅(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)]\delta (\mathit{\varphi }_0𝝍).$$
(101)
This means

$$U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\rho _𝐅(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎)=\rho _𝝍(𝐋_0,\mathit{\varphi }_0;K,𝝎).$$
(102)
Therefore one can derive the transformation rules like (88) providing (52) and the aging relation (53) for the canonical case.

### V.4 Extended System

In the above, we have defined relaxation processes in conservative dynamics with gauge symmetry. Here we consider another deterministic dynamics, which keeps the temperature constant Nose84 ; KogutS86 . It is called the extended system dynamics.

In addition to the momentum variables, we introduce a single degree of freedom, the daemon, which couples to the original system. It will act as a heat bath for the original system and convert the dynamics as an fixed-temperature one. Let the variable $`y`$ be the daemon and $`\mathrm{}`$ the conjugate momentum of it. The Hamiltonian of the extended system $`_{\mathrm{ext}}=J\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{~}{𝐋},\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }},𝝎)`$ is defined by

$$\stackrel{~}{}_{\mathrm{ext}}(\stackrel{~}{𝐋},\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }},𝝎)=\underset{ij}{}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\omega _{ij})+\frac{1}{2y^2}\underset{i}{}L_i^2+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2}+\frac{(N+1)}{K}\mathrm{ln}y,$$
(103)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }}`$ represents the set of spin variables $`\mathit{\varphi }`$ including the daemon $`y`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝐋}`$ represents the set of momentum variables $`𝐋`$ including $`\mathrm{}`$. Note that the temperature $`K`$ is explicitly included in $`_{\mathrm{ext}}`$. The canonical equations are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{L_i}{t}}`$ $`=J{\displaystyle \underset{(ji)}{}}\mathrm{sin}(\varphi _i\varphi _j+\omega _{ij}),`$ (104a)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _i}{t}}`$ $`=JL_i/y^2,`$ (104b)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{t}}`$ $`=J\left({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}L_i^2/y^2(N+1)/K\right)/y,`$ (104c)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{y}{t}}`$ $`=J\mathrm{}.`$ (104d)
It is known that the microcanonical ensemble of $`_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ with the total energy $`E`$ becomes the canonical ensemble of $`_{\mathrm{tot}}`$ with temperature $`K`$ irrespective of $`E`$ when one traces out the daemon variables $`y`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. This means that the solution of the equations with an arbitrary initial condition shows a relaxation to an orbit which traces the equilibrium distribution with temperature $`K`$, if one assumes the ergodic theorem.

In this system, the dynamical averages are given by

$$\mathrm{}_K^D=d\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_0d\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }}_0\mu (𝐋_0,\mathrm{},y)\rho _{\mathrm{eq}}(\mathit{\varphi }_0;D,𝝎)\mathrm{},$$
(105)
for the process I and

$$\mathrm{}_K^𝐅=d\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_0d\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }}_0\mu (𝐋_0,\mathrm{},y)\delta (\mathit{\varphi }_0𝐅)\mathrm{},$$
(106)
for the process II, where the integrations of $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{d}\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }}_0`$ denote the multiple integrations for $`N+1`$ momentum variables including the daemon’s $`\mathrm{}`$ and those for $`N+1`$ spin variables including $`y`$, respectively. As stated above, the initial distribution function $`\mu (𝐋_0,\mathrm{},y)`$ for $`𝐋`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`y`$ can be chosen arbitrary. We assume that $`\mu (𝐋_0,\mathrm{},y)`$ is independent of $`𝝎`$ so that it is gauge invariant. It is natural to consider that the daemon variables $`y`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are invariant under the gauge transformation $`U_𝝍V_𝝍`$. Thus, the canonical equations (104) are also invariant under the transformation, which reveals the transformation rule like (78);

$$U_𝝍^{}V_𝝍\overline{\varphi }_i(t;\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_0,\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }}_0,𝝎)=\overline{\varphi }_i(t;\stackrel{~}{𝐋}_0,\stackrel{~}{\mathit{\varphi }}_0,𝝎)\psi _i,$$
(107)
Following the previous subsection, one can show the gauge invariance of $`\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t+t_\mathrm{w})\mathrm{i}\varphi _i(t_\mathrm{w})}_K^D`$ for the process I and the transformation rule like (88) for the process II providing (52) and the aging-relation (53) for the extended system.

## VI Summary

We have applied the gauge transformation to dynamical systems of the gauge glass. The stochastic dynamics with the master equation formalism (22) as well as the deterministic one with the canonical equations of Hamilton are treated. For the deterministic case, we consider standard equations of motion with no dissipative factor (77), in which one realizes relaxation processes to choose appropriate initial distributions. Both microcanonical and canonical ensembles are considered for the initial distribution. Further, we consider the extended system dynamics (104) in which the temperature is fixed. In this dynamics, a single degree of freedom is introduced, which is called the daemon and plays a role of a heat bath. For all dynamics, we show the theory of gauge transformation in a coherent manner.

The dynamical relations (53) and (54) are derived exactly for all dynamics. The equivalence of nonequilibrium relaxations in the SG phase has been shown between the ZFC and FQ processes. The waiting-time dependence, which is typical in the aging-phenomenon coincides for ZFC and FQ processes. On the line $`K=D`$, we have found that the equilibrium relaxation coincides with the nonequilibrium one from the strong field limit. This indicates the absence of aging providing the restrictions for the regime of possible mixed phase and Griffiths phase. The exact relations for critical exponents are found at the MCP on this line. Further, we have confirmed the verticality of the FM phase boundary or equivalently the absence of the re-entrant transition.

In contrast to the standard SG systems, not many studies on the dynamical properties have been performed for gauge glass systems. The present results would be helpful for future investigations including dynamics.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work is supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research Program (#14540354) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan.

## Appendix A Modified Model

The modified model Kitata92 ; OzekiN93  is useful to consider the qualitative behaviors of physical quantities and the topology of phase diagram. The Hamiltonian is identical with the original model. The distribution of randomness, including a fixed constant $`a`$, is modified from the original model ($`a=0`$ case),

$$P_a(𝝎;D)P(𝝎;D+a)\frac{Y(D+a)Z(D;𝝎)}{Y(D)Z(D+a;𝝎)}.$$
(108)
The random average in the modified model with $`a`$ is denoted by

$$\{\mathrm{}\}_\mathrm{c}^ad𝝎P_a(𝝎;D)\mathrm{}.$$
(109)
It is shown OzekiN93  that the average of any gauge invariant quantity is independent of $`a`$, i.e.

$$\left\{Q(𝝎)\right\}_\mathrm{c}^a=\left[Q(𝝎)\right]_\mathrm{c}.$$
(110)
In this appendix, we summarize the properties of the modified model obtained previously. Analyzing the FM and SG order parameters defined from the static FM and SG correlation functions,

$`m_a(K,D)^2`$ $``$ $`\underset{R_{ij}\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|\left\{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _j}_K\right\}_\mathrm{c}^a\right|`$ (111)
$`q_a(K,D)^2`$ $``$ $`\underset{R_{ij}\mathrm{}}{lim}\left\{\left|\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _j}_K\right|^2\right\}_\mathrm{c}^a,`$ (112)
the following properties have been found exactly for the model with $`a`$:

* The PM boundary, at which the edge of $`q_a=0`$ locates, is unchanged with $`a`$.
* The ordered phase on $`K=D+a`$ must be the FM phase, since $`m_a=q_a`$ holds on it.
* The line $`K=D+a`$ is likely to intersects the MCP.
* The FM boundary below $`K=D+a`$ is vertical or re-entrant. Further, the verticality can be shown if the ordered phase between the line $`K=D+a`$ and the non-random case ($`D=\mathrm{}`$) is always FM for the modified model with any $`a`$; this assumption is quite plausible since both sides exhibit only PM-FM transition.

These properties are identical with those for the original model ($`a=0`$). In two dimensions, one can treat KT transitions in the same way by analyzing the correlation length for FM and SG orderings,

$`\xi _a(K,D)`$ $``$ $`\underset{R_{ij}\mathrm{}}{lim}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{}{R_{ij}}}\mathrm{ln}\left|\left\{\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _j}_K\right\}_\mathrm{c}^a\right|\right|^1`$ (113)
$`\stackrel{~}{\xi }_a(K,D)`$ $``$ $`\underset{R_{ij}\mathrm{}}{lim}|{\displaystyle \frac{}{R_{ij}}}\mathrm{ln}\left\{\right|\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\varphi _i\mathrm{i}\varphi _j}_K|^2\}_\mathrm{c}^a|^1,`$ (114)
instead of order parameters (111) and (112).

Since the FM correlation function as well as the FM and KT order parameters eqs. (111) and (113) are not gauge invariant, the FM (KT) boundary changes with $`a`$: At least on $`K=D+a`$, the FM (KT) regime changes with $`a`$. Thus, the qualitative behavior of averaged gauge invariant quantities at $`(K,D)`$ should not be influenced by the fact whether $`(K,D)`$ is FM (KT) or not. In other words, any gauge invariant quantity can not be an order parameter for the FM (KT) phase in modified models including the original one ($`a=0`$).