1: 

2: \documentstyle[12pt,graphicx,aps,epsf]{revtex}

3: 

4: \newcommand {\be} {\begin{equation}}

5: \newcommand {\bea} {\begin{eqnarray} \nonumber }

6: \newcommand {\ee} {\end{equation}}

7: \newcommand {\eea} {\end{eqnarray}}

8: 

9: \begin{document}

10: \parskip=0cm

11: \noindent

12: 

13: \title {On the Effects of Changing the Boundary Conditions on the

14: Ground State of Ising Spin Glasses}

15: \author{

16: Enzo Marinari and Giorgio Parisi\\

17: \small Dipartimento di Fisica, INFM and INFN, Universit\`a di Roma

18:          {\em La Sapienza},\\

19: \small P. A. Moro 2, 00185 Roma (Italy)\\

20: \small e-mail: 

21: {\tt Enzo.Marinari@roma1.infn.it, 

22: Giorgio.Parisi@roma1.infn.it}}

23: 

24: \date{April 2000}

25: 

26: \maketitle

27: 

28: \begin{abstract}

29: We compute and analyze couples of ground states of $3D$ spin glass

30: systems with the same quenched noise but periodic and anti-periodic

31: boundary conditions for different lattice sizes.  We discuss the

32: possible different behaviors of the system, we analyze the average

33: link overlap, the probability distribution of window overlaps (among

34: ground states computed with different boundary conditions) and the

35: spatial overlap and link overlap correlation functions.  We establish

36: that the picture based on Replica Symmetry Breaking correctly

37: describes the behavior of $3D$ Spin Glasses.

38: \end{abstract}

39: 

40: %\smallskip

41: 

42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

43: \section{Introduction}

44: 

45: Understanding the structure of the states of three dimensional ($3D$)

46: Ising spin glasses at finite temperature is a very interesting

47: problem.  Long time ago a mean field theory for spin glasses has been

48: constructed and successfully compared with the numerical properties of

49: a long range model, the Sherrington-Kirkpatrick model, where mean

50: field theory is exact by definition \cite{RSB}.

51: 

52: In the mean field approach one finds that the free energy landscape is

53: strongly corrugated, and it is characterized by the presence of many

54: local minima, which correspond to spin configurations very different

55: one from the other.  There are many low free energy local minima which

56: have a total free energy which differs from the ground state free

57: energy of an amount which is of order $1$; these minima contribute to

58: the probability distribution of the spins also for arbitrary large

59: volumes.  In some sense one can say that in the infinite volume there

60: are many equilibrium states (for a better qualification of the

61: terminology see \cite{MAPARIRUZU}): these states are locally different

62: one from the other.  For historical reasons this picture goes under

63: the name of {\em Replica Symmetry Breaking} (RSB).

64: 

65: Since analytic progress on finite dimensional system is hard, the

66: study of $3D$ systems has mainly been based on numerical simulations.

67: Most of the numerical simulations have investigated systems of size up

68: to $V\equiv L^3=16^{3}$ and temperature values greater or equal than

69: half of the critical temperature ($T_{c}$): the results are in very

70: good agreement with the RSB picture.  Using the best techniques that

71: are available to us today it is impossible to thermalize in a

72: reasonable amount of time systems of this size at much lower

73: temperature: because of that at today the very low temperature region

74: cannot be explored using Monte Carlo simulations.  On the other end a

75: different class of algorithms exists which allow the determination of

76: the ground state at zero temperature for systems of comparable size

77: \cite{RIEGER,MARTIN,YOUNG,MIDDLETON}: it is clear that it would be

78: very interesting to compare the results of the RSB approach with the

79: numerical results at zero temperature.

80: 

81: We face however a difficulty: in the RSB approach one computes

82: quantities at finite temperature in the infinite volume limit, while

83: if we look first for the ground state in a finite volume and only

84: later we send the volume to infinity we are exchanging the order of

85: the two limits.  One can assume in a tentative way that the two limits

86: can be exchanged, in the sense that in the zero temperature limit the

87: probability distributions of the free energies of different

88: equilibrium states becomes the probability distributions of the local

89: minima of the energy: this has been the point of view of the authors

90: that have employed this technique in the last months, it is not

91: incompatible with any of the findings obtained to date, and we will do

92: the same in the following.

93: 

94: Of course at zero temperature the ground state (i.e. the global

95: minimum of the energy) of a finite volume system with quenched random

96: couplings selected under a continuous distribution is unique, so that

97: interesting information can be extracted for example if we consider

98: the effects of an external perturbation.

99: 

100: Different choices are possible.  In a recent, very interesting paper,

101: Palassini and Young \cite{PALYOU} have shown that it is possible to

102: get useful information about the nature of the low $T$ phase of $3D$

103: Ising spin glasses with Gaussian distributed couplings by studying the

104: behavior of the ground state after changing the boundary conditions of

105: an $L^{3}$ lattice system from periodic ($PBC$) to anti-periodic

106: ($ABC$).  They analyze ground states ($GS$) obtained with the same

107: realization of the quenched disorder and different boundary conditions

108: (or with disorder realizations that differ only in some locations) for

109: $L\le 10 $.  In this paper we perform a more detailed analysis of the

110: same systems by considering a larger set of observables.  Here we use

111: a modified genetic algorithm which is more efficient than the original

112: algorithm and that will be described in details elsewhere \cite{MAPA}.

113: This modified algorithm has allowed us to study larger systems ($L\le

114: 14$) than in former work.  We arrive at the conclusion that the whole

115: set of data strongly suggests that the picture based on Replica

116: Symmetry Breaking is correct in describing the behavior of $3D$ Spin

117: Glasses.

118: 

119: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

120: \section{Some Theoretical Considerations}

121: 

122: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

123: \subsection{Four Possibilities\protect\label{FOURP}}

124: 

125: As we have already discussed in the introduction we consider a $3D$

126: Ising spin glass with quenched couplings assigned under a Gaussian

127: probability distribution with zero expectation value, and we study the

128: behavior of the ground state after changing the boundary conditions

129: ($BC$) of a simple cubic lattice system of size $V=L^3$ from periodic

130: ($P$) to anti-periodic ($AP$).  When we do such a change the ground

131: state is usually modified and in the new ground state some spins are

132: reversed.  Let us call $\sigma(i)$ and $\tau(i)$ the spins in the

133: ground states with periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions

134: respectively.  The local overlap on site $i$ is defined as 

135: 

136: \begin{equation}

137:   q(i)\equiv\sigma(i)\ \tau(i)\ .

138: \end{equation}

139: The link overlap is defined on the links and it is given

140: by 

141: 

142: \begin{equation}

143: q_{l}(i,\mu) \equiv q(i)\ q(i+\mu)\ ,

144: \end{equation}

145: where $\mu$ is the direction of the link, that can take $D$ positive

146: and $D$ negative values.  If two spin configurations differ by a

147: global reverse of the spins their link overlap is identically equal to

148: one (while their overlap is equal to $-1$).  We will consider in the

149: following the case where we flip the boundary conditions in the

150: direction $x$, while we leave them unchanged in directions $y$ and

151: $z$.

152: 

153: In a first approximation (neglecting the points at the boundaries, see

154: next subsection) we can define the interface among the flipped and the

155: non flipped region as the sets of link where $q_{l}(i,\mu)=-1$.  We

156: are interested in finding out the geometrical properties of this

157: interface in the infinite volume limit.  Of course the probability of

158: finding the interface on a random link is given by 

159: 

160: \begin{equation}

161: \rho \equiv \frac12 (1-q_{l})\ , 

162: \end{equation}

163: where $q_{l}$ is the disorder expectation value of $q_{l}(i,\mu)$,

164: averaged over sites $i$ and directions $\mu$.

165: 

166: Here we discuss a few possible situations:

167: 

168: \begin{enumerate}

169:     

170: \item 

171: The interface is confined in a region of width $L^{z}$ (with $z<1$):

172: inside this region the interface may have overhangs.  The interface

173: density goes to zero as $L^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha\ge 1-z$.  This is

174: what happens in ferromagnetic models, both with ordered and disordered

175: Hamiltonians, where $\alpha=1$, al least in the ordered case. We will

176: see immediately that this possibility is completely excluded by the

177: data.

178:     

179: \item

180: The wandering exponent $z$ is equal to one and the interface density

181: goes to zero as $L^{-\alpha}$. We also assume than in the large volume

182: limit the interface is a fractal object with fractal dimension

183: $D_{s}=D-\alpha$ (where the space dimension $D$ is equal to 3).  More

184: precisely we assume that if we define a continuous coordinate (in the

185: interval $[0-1]$) as $\frac{i}{L}$, in the infinite volume limit the

186: interface becomes a fractal object defined on the continuum

187: characterized by a fractal dimension $D_{s}$.  In other words we are

188: assuming that the interface is not a multi-fractal (i.e. that it can

189: be characterized by a single fractal dimensions as usually happens for

190: fractal objects one defines on a lattice in statistical mechanics),

191: and so the relation $D_{s}=D-\alpha$ is consistent.

192:     

193: \item 

194: The exponent $\alpha$ is equal to zero and the density $\rho$ goes to

195: a non zero value (i.e. $q_{l}$ does not go to $1$ in the large volume

196: limit).  Here the interface is space filling and in the above

197: described continuum limit, the interface is a dense set of measure

198: $1$.  We expect that the probability that the interface does not

199: intersect a region $\cal R$, whose size is proportional to the system

200: size, goes to zero when the volume goes to infinity.  On the contrary

201: in the previous case such a probability would be a non trivial

202: function of $\cal R$. As we shall see later, this possibility is the

203: one realized in the case of RSB.

204: 

205: \item

206: There is a last possibility, which is unusual, and we mention for

207: completeness (although its description will take a disproportionate

208: amount of space): this is when the wandering exponent $z$ is equal to

209: one and $\alpha$ is greater than zero, but in continuum limit the

210: interface does not become a fractal object of dimension

211: $D_{s}=D-\alpha$, but it becomes a dense set.  This happens for

212: example if we consider a set of parallel planes at distance

213: proportional to $L^{\alpha}$ or a set of isolated points at distance

214: $L^{\frac{\alpha}{D}}$.  In both cases the density goes to zero as

215: $L^{-\alpha}$, but the resulting object is {\em not} a fractal in the

216: infinite volume limit.  A similar case happens in three dimensions if

217: we take a random walk of length ${\cal L}=L^{3-\alpha}$ with $\alpha

218: <1$.  The system is a fractal of dimension $D_{s}$ up to a distance

219: $\xi(L)$, while it looks homogeneous at larger distances.

220: 

221: In this case the density-density correlation function will scale as

222: 

223: \begin{equation}

224:   C(x,L) \equiv \left. \overline{ \rho(x) \rho(0) }\right|_L

225:   \propto L^{-\alpha} x^{-C_{s}}

226:   \label{CON}

227: \end{equation}

228: in the region $1 \ll x \ll \xi(L)$, where $C_{s}=D-D_{s}$ is the

229: co-dimension of the fractal (the underlying random walk in our case).

230: We will denote by the upper bar the average over the quenched

231: disorder.  On the contrary in the region $\xi(L) \ll x$ the

232: correlation function will scale as

233: 

234: \begin{equation}

235:   C(x,L) \propto  L^{-2 \alpha}\ .  

236:   \label{DIS}

237: \end{equation}

238: The condition that at large distances the term in equation (\ref{DIS})

239: dominates over the one in equation (\ref{CON}) implies that

240: $C_{s}>\alpha$.  Moreover the two formulas must be consistent in the

241: crossover region where $x\approx\xi(L)$. Imposing this condition one

242: finds that $ L^{-\alpha}

243: \xi(L)^{-C_{s}} \propto L^{-2 \alpha}$ and  therefore

244: we obtain that

245: 

246: \begin{equation} 

247:   \xi(L) \propto

248:   L^{\omega}\ , \ \ \ \omega = {\alpha \over C_{s}} <1 \ .

249: \end{equation} 

250: This case is anomalous in the sense that usual scaling is not valid

251: and there is a crossover length which increases as a fractional power

252: of the side of the system.  The usual scaling law (valid in the region

253: $x=O(L)$)

254: 

255: \begin{equation}

256: C(x,L) =L^{-2 \alpha} f(x L^{-1}) 

257: \end{equation} 

258: is not satisfied and it is replaced by the unusual relation

259: 

260: \begin{equation} 

261: C(x,L) =L^{- \alpha -C_{s}} f(x

262: L^{-1}) + A L^{-2 \alpha}g(x L^{-1})\ .

263: \end{equation}

264: Only in the case $\alpha=0$ we are in a familiar situation: in this

265: case the crossover length $\xi$ does not diverge for large $L$ and we

266: recover the third case of our list.

267: 

268: \end{enumerate}

269: 

270: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

271: \subsection{The Effect of Changing Boundaries}

272: 

273: In the replica approach one finds that at zero temperature there are

274: many different local minima of the Hamiltonian such that even in the

275: limit where $L$ goes to infinity the difference among the energy of

276: the ground state and the energy of such minima is of order $1$.  It is

277: crucial that the among these minima there are some whose site overlap

278: $q$ and link overlap $q_l$ with the ground state remains different

279: from $1$ in large volume limit.  It is also important to assume that

280: for large volumes there exists a function $f$ such that

281: $q_{l}=f(q^{2})$, in other words that for fixed overlap $q$ the link

282: overlap $q_{l}$ does not fluctuate when the volume goes to infinity.

283: 

284: When in a $3D$ spin glass the boundary conditions in the $x$ direction

285: are flipped from positive to negative it is known that the total

286: energy changes by an amount $\Delta E$, which increases as a power of

287: $L$.  In a ferromagnet, where the ground state is unique, the ground

288: state obtained under anti-periodic condition would be locally similar

289: to the ground state obtained under periodic boundary conditions.  In

290: other words in any region of side $M$, if the region does not

291: intersect the interface, which is just a flat surface, the ground

292: state spin configuration obtained under anti-periodic boundary

293: conditions will be equal (or equal to the reverse) to the ground state

294: obtained under periodic boundary conditions.

295: 

296: A similar conclusion holds in the case of a spin glass behaving

297: according to the predictions of the droplet model \cite{DROPLET},

298: where the boundary may be a corrugated surface: in this case we expect

299: that the link overlap among the ground states obtained with $PBC$ and

300: $ABC$ tends to one in the infinite volume limit.  On the contrary in

301: the case of a RSB like behavior the ground state obtained under $ABC$

302: can be locally similar to one of the low energy excited states: in

303: this case the link overlap among the two ground states can tend to a

304: value {\em different} from one as $L\to\infty$.

305: 

306: That an excited state may be selected as new ground state when

307: changing the boundary conditions is strongly suggested by the fact

308: that the energy difference among ground states obtained with periodic

309: and anti-periodic boundary conditions increases with $L$, while the

310: difference among the ground state energy and the excited state energy

311: at fixed boundary conditions remains fixed.

312: 

313: The nature of the excited state that is selected when we change the

314: boundary conditions cannot easily derived using simple arguments.  It

315: is reasonable to assume that in three dimensions, where $\Delta E$

316: which increases as a power of $L$, the new ground state will be as

317: different as possible from the old ground state: one expects the

318: overlap $q$ among the two ground states to vanish in this limit.

319: 

320: The interest in changing the boundary conditions is also due to the

321: fact that this is also a convenient method to to study the properties

322: of the excited states. Other methods can be used to clarify similar

323: questions, but we will not use them here.

324: 

325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

326: \subsection{Gauge Invariance}

327: 

328: In order to change the boundary conditions in the $x$ direction we can

329: change the sign of all the couplings connecting the plane $x=x_{0}$

330: with the plane $x=x_{0}+1$.  The choice of $x_{0}$ does not matter:

331: the ground state energy does not depend on $x_{0}$, and the ground

332: state obtained after a different choice of the reversed plane

333: (e.g. $x=x_{1}$) can be obtained starting from the ground state where

334: anti-periodic boundary conditions have been enforced at $x_{0}$, by

335: flipping all the spins in the interval $ x_{0} < x \le x_{1}$.

336: 

337: In other words going from periodic to anti-periodic boundary

338: conditions is a global change that locally is not visible.  At this

339: end it is convenient to define quantities which are gauge invariant,

340: in the sense that they do not change when the plane where the

341: anti-periodic boundary conditions are imposed.

342: 

343: Let us consider a very simple example: the correct definition of

344: $q_l(i,+\hat{x})$ is

345: 

346: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

347:   q_l(i,+\hat{x})&\equiv&q(i)\  q(i+\hat{x}) \ \ \ \ 

348:   \mbox{for} \ \ \ x\ne x_{0}, 

349:   \\ q_l(i,+\hat{x})&\equiv&-q(i)\  q(i+\hat{x}) \ \ \ \ \mbox{for} \ 

350:   \ \ x=x_{0}\ ,

351: \end{eqnarray}

352: where $x$ is the first component of the three dimensional vector $i$.

353: 

354: A more complex case is the definition of the window overlap

355: \cite{WINDOW} in a box of side $M$ which intersects the plane

356: $x=x_{0}$. Here the overlap $q_{M}$ can be defined as

357: 

358: \begin{equation}

359:   \sum_{i \in {\cal A}}q(i) - 

360:   \sum_{i \in {\cal B}}q(i)

361: \end{equation}

362: where $\cal A$ and $\cal B$ are the set of points of the box which are

363: respectively on the right and on the left of the plane $x=x_{0}$.

364: 

365: The advantage of this prescription (which can be easily generalized to

366: more complex situations) is that in absence of a magnetic field

367: nothing depends on the actual position of the plane where the boundary

368: conditions are enforced: the fact that the reversal of the spins is

369: imposed at a given value of $x$ is immaterial.  The presence of this

370: translational invariance is very effective from a practical point of

371: view: the expectation value of $q_{l}$ does not depend on the point,

372: so that data can be taken on the whole lattice. The possibility of

373: doing measurements on the whole lattice and not only far from the

374: point where the boundary conditions are changed reduces the

375: statistical errors in a substantial way.

376: 

377: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

378: \section{A First Look to the Numerical Results}

379: 

380: We have computed $16000$ couples of ground states on three dimensional

381: lattices of linear size $L=4$, $73740$ for $L=6$, $8532$ for $L=8$,

382: $2434$ for $L=10$, $910$ for $L=12$ and $670$ for $L=14$: for each

383: sample of the quenched disorder (Gaussian couplings) we have computed the two ground states

384: under periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions, using a modified

385: genetic algorithm which will be described elsewhere \cite{MAPA}.

386: 

387: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

388: \subsection{The Average Link Overlap}

389: 

390: The introduction of anti-periodic boundary conditions breaks the

391: discrete rotational invariance of the simple cubic lattice, so that

392: the expectation value of $q_{l}(i,\hat{x})$, i.e. of the link overlap

393: in the $x$ direction, can be different from that of the link overlap

394: in the other two directions.  In the ferromagnetic case (without

395: disorder) the change of the boundary conditions produces an interface

396: in one of the $y-z$ planes.  We will call {\em perpendicular link

397: overlap} $q_{P}$ the expectation value of $q_{l}(i,\hat{x})$ averaged

398: over the lattice sites, since it is perpendicular to the $y-z$

399: interface, while we will call {\em transverse link overlap} $q_{T}$

400: the average over sites of the quantity $\frac12 \left(

401: q_{l}(i,\hat{y}) + q_{l}(i,\hat{z}) \right)$.

402: 

403: In the ferromagnetic case (without disorder) one finds that

404: 

405: \begin{equation}

406:  1-q_{P}=\frac{1}{L}, \ \ \ \ 1-q_{T}=0\ .

407: \end{equation}

408: We show in figure (\ref{qlink}) the numerical data for $1-q_{T}$ and

409: $1-q_{P}$ in our $3D$ spin glass.  It is clear that the difference

410: $q_{T}-q_{P}$ goes to zero with $\frac{1}{L}$: it can be very well

411: fitted as $a L^{-b}$ with $b\simeq 2.5$ and a normalized $\chi^2$ of

412: order one.

413: 

414: It is also evident that $1-q_{P}$ is with a very good approximation a

415: linear function of $L^{-1}$ in the same way it would be in the

416: ferromagnetic case, with the difference that here the extrapolation in

417: the $L\to\infty$ limit is clearly different from zero.

418: 

419: A closer look shows that $1-q_{P}$ is not exactly a linear function of

420: $L^{-1}$, and it can be very well fitted (with a normalized $\chi^{2}$

421: of order one) as a second order polynomial in $L^{-1}$.  The same

422: polynomial fit works very well also for $1-q_{T}$.  The two fits

423: extrapolate to the same value (in the limit given by the statistical

424: error).  In the same picture we show also the data for

425: $1-q_{P}-\frac1L$, i.e. the value we measure for $1-q_{P}$ in our spin

426: glass minus its {\em a priori} lower bound, which coincides with the

427: value in the ferromagnetic case, and we note it has a very weak

428: dependence over $L$.

429: 

430: \begin{figure}

431: \centering

432: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig1.ps}

433: \caption[a]{$1-q_{T}$, $1-q_{P}$ and $1-q_{P}-\frac{1}{L}$ versus

434: $\frac{1}{L}$ for $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.  We plot

435: three polynomial best fits (of second degree in $\frac{1}{L}$) to

436: these three quantities and a simple power best fit to $1-q_{T}$.

437: \protect\label{qlink} }

438: \end{figure}

439: 

440: A power law fit to a zero asymptotic value (i.e. to the form $A

441: L^{-\alpha}$) of $1-q_{P}$ does not give acceptable results, while the

442: data for $1-q_{T}$ can be fitted by a pure power law, with $\alpha

443: \simeq 0.27$. A power law fits also works (even if with a higher value

444: of $\chi^2$) for $1-q_{l}(L)\equiv 1- \frac23 q_{T} -\frac13 q_{P}$

445: with a similar value of $\alpha$.

446: 

447: It clear that it is not acceptable to fit the values of the two link

448: overlaps with two different functional forms.  Our conclusion is that

449: the data do not support the droplet model prediction that $q_{l}$ is

450: zero in the large $L$ asymptotic limit, and they hint for 

451: 

452: \begin{equation}

453:   \lim_{L\to\infty}\left(1 - q_{l}\right) 

454:   = 0.245 \pm 0.015\ .

455: \label{E-TWOFOURFIVE}

456: \end{equation}

457: This estimate of the errors relays on the polynomial fit in powers of

458: $\frac{1}{L}$. Considering a third order polynomial for $q_{T}$ does

459: not change the situation. If we fit $1-q_{T}$ with a four parameter

460: function of the form $A + B L^{-\alpha} + C L ^{-2\alpha}$ we find an

461: extrapolated value of $A = q_{l} = 0.20 \pm 0.06$, which is consistent

462: with the previous estimate: it is clear that in providing a complete

463: estimate of the error over the extrapolated value one has to include

464: the systematic uncertainty due to the possibility of using different

465: functional forms for the extrapolating function. On the other end

466: corrections proportional to a power of $\frac{1}{L}$ arise naturally,

467: as it will be seen in the section on the correlations functions.

468: 

469: The analysis of $q_{T}$ and $q_{P}$ shows that the RSB picture gives a

470: consistent and satisfactory explanation of the numerical data.  We

471: will see in the rest of this note that this conclusion is supported by

472: the analysis of many other quantities.

473: 

474: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

475: \subsection{The Hole Distribution}

476: 

477: It is interesting to consider a region of shape $\cal R$ and to define

478: the probability $P_1({\cal R},L)$ that a box of such a shape does {\em

479: not} intersect the interface.  In the case of a box of shape $2\times

480: 1 \times 1$ it is clear that $P_1({\cal R},L)$ coincides with

481: $\frac{1}{2}(1+q_{l})$.

482: 

483: Following Palassini and Young \cite{PALYOU} we define $1-P_1(M,L)$ as

484: the probability that the interface does hit a cubic box of side $M$,

485: i.e. we take ${\cal R} =M\times M \times M$.  In figure (\ref{cubi}) we

486: show our numerical data for various values of $L$ and $M$. It is

487: possible to fit these data (if we restrict ourself in the region $M\le

488: \frac{L}{2}$, in order to have comparable finite volume effects for

489: the different $L$ values) by a simple power of $L$ (i.e. by the form

490: $A L^{-\alpha}$): however the power $\alpha$ of the best fits strongly

491: depends on $M$ (it is given by $0.32$, $0.23$ and $0.14$ for $M$ $=$

492: $2$, $3$ and $4$ respectively), while in a meaningful fit we would

493: expect to find  a $M$-independent exponent.

494: 

495: Second order polynomial fits in powers of $\frac{1}{L}$ work well in

496: the region $M\le \frac{L}{2}$: they give for the extrapolated

497: $\left(1-P_1\left(M,\infty\right)\right)$ the values $0.35$, $0.56$

498: and $0.65$ for $M$ $=$ $2$, $3$ and $4$ respectively.  The data are

499: consistent with the possibility that $1-P_1(M,\infty)$ goes to $1$

500: when $M\to\infty$.  Indeed the extrapolated data reported before can

501: be fitted as $1-P_1(M,\infty) = 1 - A M^{-\gamma}$ with $\gamma$ close

502: to one.

503: 

504: It is clear that also in this case the data do not favor the kind of

505: behavior predicted by the droplet model, where $1-P_1(M,\infty) =0$: they

506: are far better consistent with the possibility that $1-P_1(M,\infty)$ is a

507: non trivial function of $M$, which goes to $1$ (and it is not  zero) when

508: $M$ goes to infinity.

509: 

510: \begin{figure}

511: \centering

512: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig2.ps}

513: \caption[a]{ $1-P_1(M,L)$ versus $\frac{M}{L}$ for $M=2, ...,

514: \min\left(L,8\right)$, and $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.

515: \protect\label{cubi} }

516: \end{figure}

517: 

518: This conclusion is strengthened if we look for example to the plot of

519: $P_1(2,L)-P_1(3,L)$ and $P_1(3,L)-P_1(4,L)$: the data for those two

520: quantities are shown in figure (\ref{differenze}). The droplet model

521: suggestion that these quantities go to zero as a power of $L$ when $L$

522: goes to infinity does not seem very convincing.

523: 

524: \begin{figure}

525: \centering

526: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig3.ps}

527: \caption[a] {The quantities $P_1(2,L)-P_1(3,L)$ and

528: $P_1(3,L)-P_1(4,L)$ versus $\frac{1}{L}$ for $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$,

529: $10$, $12$, $14$.  \protect\label{differenze} }

530: \end{figure}

531: 

532: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

533: \section{Scaling Behavior}

534: 

535: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

536: \subsection{The Hole Distribution Again}

537: 

538: As we have discussed in the introduction if in the infinite volume

539: limit the interface becomes a fractal, characterized by an unique

540: fractal dimension $D_{s}$, and the density of the interface goes to

541: zero as $L^{-\alpha}$, with $\alpha=D-D_{s}$, the probability of

542: finding a hole in a box of size $\cal R$ goes to a non trivial

543: function of $\cal R$ if we keep constant the size of the box in units

544: of $L$.  In the opposite case the interface would be become a space

545: filling dense object.  If we consider boxes of side $M$ the previous

546: argument shows that the probability that the box does intersect the

547: interface $1-P_1(M,L)$ should be a function of $\frac{M}{L}$.  A

548: glance to figure (\ref{cubi}) shows that our numerical data do not

549: exhibit such scaling: the interface is not a fractal characterized by

550: a simple fractal dimension. On the contrary if we plot

551: $L^{-1.3}\ln(P_1(M,L))$ versus $\frac{M}{L}$ (see figure

552: (\ref{cubibis}) we find a reasonable scaling behavior, indicating

553: again that $1-P_1(M,L)$ goes exponentially to $1$ when $L$ goes to

554: infinity at fixed $\frac{M}{L}$.

555: 

556: The same conclusion holds very clearly if we consider the case of

557: boxes of size $L \times L \times 1$, i.e. planes, oriented in the

558: $y-z$ directions, i.e. parallel to the interface.  The probability

559: that such a plane does {\em not} intersect the interface $P_{p}(L)$

560: would tend to $1$ in the situation (1) described in section

561: (\ref{FOURP}), while it would tend to a non zero number in situation

562: (2), The numerical data (in figure (\ref{piani})) decrease very

563: rapidly as a function of $L$ (they can be reasonably fitted as

564: $aL^{-\delta}$ with $\delta$ of order two, but a better fit has the

565: form $a\exp(-bL^{c})$: the asymptotic limit is zero in both cases).

566: The first scenario we have presented in section (\ref{FOURP}) i.e. the

567: one of an exponent $z<1$, would imply that this probability goes to

568: one asymptotically: this is certainly not the case.

569: 

570: 

571: This set of data shows that the interface is space filling on a scale

572: proportional to the side $L$ of the system.  Of course one could

573: suggest that the numerical data are affected by {\em very} strong

574: corrections to scaling: however it is not clear why this should happen

575: (the scaling in figure (\ref{cubibis}) is very good).  In order to see if

576: we are able to detect any trace of these corrections it is convenient

577: to consider other quantities.

578: 

579: \begin{figure}

580: \centering

581: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig_pml_log.ps}

582: \caption[a]{$L^{-1.3}\ln(P_1(M,L))$ versus $\frac{M}{L}$ for

583: $M=2,..., \min\left(L,8\right)$ and $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.

584: \protect\label{cubibis}}

585: \end{figure}

586: 

587: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

588: \subsection{Other Scaling Laws}\label{other}

589: 

590: If we go back to our boxes of side $M$ we can define the window

591: overlap \cite{WINDOW} as the value of the overlap $q$ restricted to

592: one of these boxes. We can define $P_{M,L}(|q|)$ as the probability

593: distribution of the absolute value of such window overlap: the

594: probability is symmetric, so that we can consider only non negative

595: values of $q$. The probability that the interface does not intersect

596: the cube of side $M$ is simply given by $P_{M,L}(1)$.

597: 

598: In the case where the two ground states obtained under different

599: boundary conditions are as different as possible the quantity

600: 

601: \begin{equation}

602: q^{2}_{M,L} \equiv \int dq\  q^{2}\  P_{M,L}(q)

603: \end{equation}

604: should go zero at fixed $\frac{M}{L}$ at large $M$.  A simple possible

605: scaling behavior is that for large $M$ and $L$

606: 

607: \begin{equation}

608:   q^{2}_{M,L} \simeq L^{-\delta}f(ML^{-1})\ .

609: \end{equation}

610: We show the numerical data for $q^{2}_{M,L}L^{\delta}$ versus

611: $ML^{-1}$ figure (\ref{q2cubi}) (with $\delta=.32$).  The data for $L>4$

612: show a beautiful and very accurate scaling behavior.

613: 

614: \begin{figure}

615: \centering

616: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig4.ps}

617: \caption[a]{$P_{p}(L)$ versus $L^{-1}$ for 

618: $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.  

619: \protect\label{piani} }

620: \end{figure}

621: 

622: The data in figures (\ref{cubibis}) and (\ref{q2cubi}) strongly

623: suggest that asymptotic scaling laws are valid with good accuracy

624: already for the lattice and block sizes that we have considered:

625: sub-leading corrections are small, and they do not seem to be of

626: exceptionally large size.  Moreover we find that for windows that

627: occupy a finite fraction of the entire system in the infinite volume

628: limit the window overlap distribution seems to become a delta function

629: $\delta(q)$.

630: \begin{figure}

631: \centering

632: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig5.ps}

633: \caption[a]{ $q^{2}_{M,L}L^{\delta}$ versus

634: $ML^{-1}$ for $M=2, ..., \min\left(L,8\right)$ and 

635: $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.  

636: \protect\label{q2cubi} }

637: \end{figure}

638: 

639: Up to now all of our numerical evidence seems in perfect agreement

640: with the RSB predictions, and the first two possibilities we had

641: discussed in section (\ref{FOURP}) are excluded. In order to exclude the

642: more exotic last possibility, and to present further evidence for the

643: correctness of the RSB picture, it is convenient to study the

644: correlation functions, both of $q_{l}$ and of $q$. This will be done

645: in the next section.

646: 

647: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

648: \section{Correlation Functions}

649: 

650: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

651: \subsection {The Link Overlap Correlation Functions}

652: 

653: We will present here a detailed analysis of the correlation functions:

654: this is important since they carry a large amount of information that

655: is crucial to distinguish among the different possible behaviors.

656: 

657: 

658: As we have already discussed if we consider the case where there is an

659: interface in the $y-z$ plane we must distinguish among correlations in

660: the transverse and in the perpendicular directions.  Moreover in the

661: case of vector like quantities like $q_{l}$ we must distinguish among

662: correlations in the direction of the link and correlations in the

663: directions perpendicular to that of the link. For simplicity here we

664: will consider only one correlation, i.e. the transverse link overlap

665: correlation in the direction perpendicular to the link.  More

666: precisely the link overlap correlation function we consider is defined

667: as

668: 

669: \begin{equation}

670:   G(d,L) \equiv 

671:   {1 \over 2 L^{3}}

672:   \sum_{x,y,z}\overline{q_{l}(x,y,z;\hat{y})\ q_{l}(x,y,z+d;\hat{y})+

673:   q_{l}(x,y,z;\hat{z})\ q_{l}(x,y+d,z;\hat{z})}\ .

674: \end{equation}

675: With this definition the correlation functions are periodic functions

676: of $d$ with period $L$, and they are symmetric functions of $d$, so

677: that only the case $0\le d\le \frac{L}{2}$ is interesting.

678: 

679: \begin{figure}

680: \centering

681: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig_corlink.ps}

682: \caption[a]{The correlation functions $G(d,L)$ versus $w\equiv

683: \left(\frac{1}{d}+\frac{1}{L-d}\right)^{\lambda}$ with $\lambda=1.5$

684: for $d> 0$ and $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.  The solid

685: curves are smooth interpolations to the data point, and they turn out

686: to be remarkably linear and the lines corresponding to different sizes

687: are nearly parallel.  

688: \protect\label{G}}

689: \end{figure}

690: 

691: We show in figure (\ref{G}) the link overlap correlation functions at

692: distance greater than $0$ for different $L$ values. We plot them as a

693: function of the variable

694: 

695: \begin{equation}

696:    w\equiv \left(\frac{1}{d}+\frac{1}{L-d}\right)^{\lambda} \ ,

697: \end{equation}

698: with $\lambda=1.5$.  The reasons for this choice of the dependent

699: variable will be clearer later: right now we just notice that the

700: points look remarkably linear.

701: 

702: If we want to concentrate our attention on the $d$ dependence of the

703: correlation function (neglecting a possible constant value at large distance) 

704: we can consider the quantity

705: 

706: \begin{equation}

707:   \Delta G(d+\frac12,L) \equiv G(d,L)-G(d+1,L)\ .

708: \end{equation}

709: Simple scaling implies that the function 

710: 

711: \begin{equation}

712: f(w,L)\equiv\Delta G(d+\frac12,L) (d^{-1}+(L-d)^{-1})^{1+\lambda}\ ,

713: \end{equation}

714: where $w=dL^{-1}$, should be independent from $L$ for large $L$. The

715: numerical data are shown in figure (\ref{DeltaG}).  A good scaling is

716: obtained with the choice of the value $\lambda =1.5$.

717: 

718: We expect that the correlation function can be fitted at large $L$ and

719: $d$ as

720: 

721: \begin{equation}

722:   G(d,L) = B(L) 

723:   \left(d^{-1}+(L-d)^{-1}\right)^{-\lambda} 

724:   + A(L)^{2} \ .

725:   \label{fitG}

726: \end{equation}

727: The form that we have taken is the simplest one which enforces the

728: periodicity. Of course different forms are possible. 

729: In order to consider also the $d$-independent part of the correlations

730: functions it is convenient to fit the whole set of data shown in

731: figure (\ref{G}) using equation (\ref{fitG}), where for simplicity we

732: fix $\lambda=1.5$. The fits are good (they would also be good for

733: similar values of $\lambda$) so that the whole data can be

734: reconstructed by the knowledge of the parameters $A(L)$ and $B(L)$,

735: which are shown in figure (\ref{AB}).

736: 

737: \begin{figure}

738: \centering

739: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig_dsca.ps}

740: \caption[a]{The quantity $f(w,L)=\Delta G(d+\frac12,L)

741: (d^{-1}+(L-d)^{-1})^{1+\lambda}$ with $\lambda=1.5$ as a function of

742: $d$.  Here $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.

743: \protect\label{DeltaG}}

744: \end{figure}

745: 

746: \begin{figure}

747: \centering

748: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig_ab2.ps}

749: \caption[a]{The two fit parameters $A(L)$ and $B(L)$ as function of

750: $L$ for $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.  We show both a a

751: power fit and a polynomial fit in $\frac{1}{L}$.

752: \protect\label{AB}}

753: \end{figure}

754: 

755: While $A(L)$ displays some dependence on $L$, there is no hint that

756: the quantity $B(L)$ should go to zero when $L\to \infty$.  Certainly

757: both of them do not go to zero as $L^{-\alpha}$ with $\alpha

758: \approx.3$ as expected in the case of possibility (4), and they can be

759: consistently extrapolated to a non-zero value.  If we would insist on

760: power law fits we would find a value of $\alpha_{A}=0.15$ for $A(L)$

761: and a ridiculous value of $\alpha_{B}=0.03$ for $B(L)$.

762: 

763: It is remarkable that $A(L)$, that should tend to the link overlap in

764: the $L\to\infty$ limit, tends to $0.242$, to be compared with the

765: value $0.245\pm 0.015$ (see equation (\ref{E-TWOFOURFIVE})) that we

766: have derived from a completely different analysis: the picture that

767: emerges from these data give consistent support to a RSB physical

768: scenario.  Also it is worth to comment more on the power fit of figure

769: (\ref{AB}): even if they are compatible with the data it looks clear

770: they are only minimally consistent with the physical behavior shown by

771: the measured points.  Typically these fits stay basically constant for

772: all measured $L$ values, and than they forecast a sharp descend at

773: very high $L$ values: the polynomial fits show on the contrary a

774: consistent behavior in the measured $L$ range and in the $L\to\infty$

775: limit.

776: 

777: The second scenario we have discussed is in complete variance with

778: the behavior of the correlation function data.  The exponent $\lambda$

779: should be $.3$, not $1.5$, as indicated by the data. This conclusion

780: is in perfect agreement with the results of the hole probability

781: distribution.

782: 

783: We are now ready to analyze the possible correctness of the fourth

784: scenario we have discussed (the interface is a dense set in the

785: continuum limit).  The results of figure (\ref{DeltaG}) show that we

786: should have $D_{s}=D-\lambda \approx 1.5$.  The fact that the

787: interface would have a fractal dimension less than 2 is strange, but

788: not impossible: the interface could look like the surface of

789: T-lymphocytes, which is full of microvilli, i.e. quasi one dimensional

790: objects.

791: 

792: However in this case the correlation function (and therefore the

793: correlation functions at fixed distance) should go to zero as

794: $L^{-\alpha}$: the correlation functions at distances of order $L$

795: should go to zero as $L^{-2\alpha}$. The scaling observed in figure

796: (\ref{DeltaG}) should not be there. The two exponents $\alpha_{A}$ and

797: $\alpha_{B}$ should be both equal to $0.3$, which we have already seen

798: it is not true.

799: 

800: It is evident that also the exotic possibility (4) is not compatible

801: with the observed form of the link overlap correlations (which are

802: perfectly compatible with simple scaling laws without anomalies), and

803: the only possibilities is given by the behavior implied by the RSB

804: scenario.

805: 

806: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

807: \subsection {The Overlap Correlation Functions}

808: 

809: Here we consider the overlap correlation function. In this case we can

810: define two interesting correlation functions: the transverse

811: correlation function

812: 

813: \begin{equation}

814:   C_{T}(d,L)={1 \over 2 L^{3}}\sum_{x,y,z}

815:   \overline{q(x,y,z)\ q(x,y,z+d)+q(x,y,z)\ q(x,y+d,z)}\ ,

816: \end{equation}

817: and the perpendicular correlation function

818: 

819: \begin{equation}

820:   C_{P}(d,L)={1 \over  L^{3}}\sum_{x,y,z}

821:   \overline{q(x,y,z)\ q(x+d,y,z)\ S(x,x+d)}\ ,

822: \end{equation}

823: where $S(x,x+d)=\pm 1 $ is factor which implements gauge invariance:

824: it is equal to $-1$ if the line which connects the points $x$ and

825: $x+d$ crosses the plane where boundary conditions are changed.

826: 

827: The two correlations functions are respectively periodic and

828: anti-periodic functions of $D$ with period $L$ ($C_{P}(L/2,L)=0$).

829: 

830: \begin{figure}

831: \centering

832: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig6.ps}

833: \caption[a]{The overlap-overlap correlation functions divided times

834: the factor $\left(\frac{1}{d}+\frac{1}{L-d}\right)^{0.32}$ as a

835: function of $\frac{d}{L}$. The upper dots are for the perpendicular

836: correlation function divided an additional factor

837: $(1-\frac{2d}{L})$. Lines are best fits (see the text).

838: \protect\label{overcf}}

839: \end{figure}

840: 

841: We notice that

842: 

843: \begin{equation}

844: q_{P}(L)=C_{P}(1,L),\ \ \ \ q_{T}(L)=C_{T}(1,L).

845: \end{equation}

846: Consequently an analysis of the combined $d$ and $L$ dependence of the

847: overlap-overlap correlation functions can give information on the

848: origin of the $L$ dependence of the link overlap, which coincide with

849: the overlap-overlap correlation function at distance $1$.

850: 

851: According to the previous analysis of the window overlap we expect

852: that the two correlations functions to scale as

853: 

854: \begin{equation}

855:   C(d,L)=f(dL^{-1}) (d^{-1}+(L-d)^{-1})^{-\delta}  \ .

856: \label{fitC}

857: \end{equation}

858: The plot of figure (\ref{overcf}) shows a very good scaling, and two

859: parameter polynomial fits work very well. Transversal and

860: perpendicular correlation functions go to the same limit when $x\to

861: 0$.  Since the perpendicular correlation function is identically zero

862: in $d=\frac{L}2$, we also plot the perpendicular $C$ divided times

863: $(1-\frac{2d}{L})$, removing in this way the main $\frac{d}{L}$

864: dependence, which comes from a kinematical effect: it goes very

865: smoothly to the correct limit when $x\to 0$.

866: 

867: The extrapolated values are $0.732 \pm 0.008$ for the transverse

868: correlation function and $0.722 \pm 0.005$ for the perpendicular one.

869: This is well consistent with the estimate quoted before (and obtained

870: by measuring a completely different quantity) for the link overlap,

871: $q_{l} = 0.755 \pm 0.015$.

872: 

873: As a consistency check we plot in figure (\ref{meta}) the correlation

874: function $C_{T}(L/2,L)$ as function of $L$.  The data can be fitted

875: very well by simple power fit $C\ L^{-\delta}$, with $\delta \simeq

876: 0.32$.

877: 

878: It is clear that we have identified a physical mechanism which

879: naturally generates an $\frac{1}{L}$ dependence in $q_{l}$

880: (correlation functions do usually feel the size of the system): simple

881: scaling laws are valid and the ground state structure is non

882: trivial. On the contrary a trivial structure (in the sense of the

883: droplet model) would imply that the quantities $f(s)$ extrapolate at

884: $1$ when $s$ goes to zero (which is evidently not true) or they do not

885: satisfy a simple scaling and there is a crossover region of length

886: $\xi(L)$ which goes to infinity with $L$. Both these possibilities are

887: not compatible with the data which strongly suggested the RSB

888: scenario.

889: 

890: \begin{figure}

891: \centering

892: \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]{fig_cll2.ps}

893: \caption[a]{The correlation $C_{T}(L/2,L)$ as function  

894: $L$ $=$ $4$, $6$, $8$, $10$, $12$, $14$.  

895: \protect\label{meta} }

896: \end{figure}

897: 

898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

899: \section{Conclusions}

900: 

901: We have studied the overlap among the two ground states obtained under

902: periodic and anti-periodic boundary conditions for $3D$ lattice of

903: linear sizes $L$ up to $L=14$.  We have analyzed many different

904: observables: the average of the link overlap, the probability that the

905: a cube of size $M$ or a plane hits the interface, the window overlap

906: probability distribution and the correlation functions of the link

907: overlap and the overlap.

908: 

909: The droplet model in the usual form assumes that the interface density

910: (which is one minus the link overlap) goes to zero for large $L$ as

911: $L^{-\alpha}$, and that the interface is a fractal with dimension

912: $D^{s}=D-\alpha=3-\alpha$.  A small subset of our numerical data is

913: consistent with the possibility the interface density could go to zero

914: as $L^{-\alpha}$, but other data cannot be fitted as a simple power

915: and strongly suggest that the interface density remains finite in the

916: limit $L \to \infty$.  The possibility that $D_{s}=3-\alpha$ is

917: completely excluded by the data. Some of the data are compatible with

918: $\alpha=0.3$ and $D_{s}=1.5$, but we have shown that this exotic

919: possibility is not compatible with the rest of data.

920: 

921: The RSB scenario is perfectly compatible with the whole set of data.

922: The appropriate scaling laws for all the variables are satisfied with

923: amazing accuracy.  The observed $L$ dependence of the interface

924: density can be easily explained if we consider the scaling law

925: appropriate for the overlap overlap correlation function.  We also

926: want to notice the coherence of these results and the recent detection

927: of large scale excitations in spin glass ground states

928: \cite{KRZMAR,PALYOU2}.

929: 

930: The behavior we find connects smoothly with the results obtained by

931: simulations at finite temperature \cite{MAPARIRUZU}.  For example we

932: find that the overlap-overlap correlation decays as the distance to a

933: power $\delta=.3$, which is not very far from the value obtained from

934: simulation at finite temperature.  Other results in this direction can

935: be found in \cite{MAPARU}.

936: 

937: We think that we have conclusively shown that the ground state

938: structure of $3D$ Ising spin glasses with Gaussian quenched random

939: couplings is not trivial.

940: 

941: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

942: \section*{Acknowledgments}

943: We are grateful to M. Palassini and P. Young for a very useful

944: correspondence.

945: 

946: \begin{references}

947: 

948: \bibitem{RSB} 

949:   G. Parisi, 

950:   Phys.  Rev.  Lett.  {\bf 43}, 1754 (1979);

951:   J. Phys.  A {\bf 13}, 1101, 1887, L115 (1980); 

952:   Phys.  Rev.  Lett. {\bf 50}, 1946 (1983); 

953:   M. M\'ezard, G. Parisi and M. A. Virasoro, 

954:   {\em Spin Glass Theory and Beyond}  

955:   (World Scientific, Singapore 1987).

956: 

957: \bibitem{MAPARIRUZU} 

958:   E. Marinari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci Tersenghi, 

959:   J.J. Ruiz Lorenzo and F. Zuliani,

960:   J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 98}, 973 (2000),

961:   cond-mat/9906076.

962: 

963: %first work on ground states

964: 

965: \bibitem{RIEGER}

966:   H. Rieger, 

967:   {\em Frustrated Systems: Ground State Properties via

968:   Combinatorial Optimization}, in 

969:   {\em Lecture Notes in Physics} {\bf 501} (Springer-Verlag,

970:   Heidelberg 1998).

971: 

972: \bibitem{MARTIN}

973:   J. Houdayer and O. Martin,

974:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1030 (1999),

975:   cond-mat/9901276.

976: 

977: \bibitem{YOUNG}

978:   M. Palassini and A. P. Young,

979:   Phys. Rev. B {\bf 60}, R9919 (1999),

980:   cond-mat/9904206.

981: 

982: \bibitem{MIDDLETON}

983:   A. Middleton, 

984:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 1672 (1999),

985:   cond-mat/9904285.

986: 

987: \bibitem{PALYOU} 

988:   M. Palassini and A. P. Young,

989:   Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 83}, 5126 (1999),

990:   cond-mat/9906323.

991: 

992: \bibitem{MAPA} 

993:   E. Marinari and G. Parisi,

994:   to be published.

995: 

996: \bibitem{DROPLET}

997:   W. L. McMillan,

998:   J. Phys. C {\bf 17}, 3179 (1984);

999:   A. J. Bray and M. A. Moore,

1000:   in {\em Heidelberg Colloquium on Glassy Dynamics and Optimization},

1001:   L. Van Hemmen and I. Morgenstern eds. 

1002:   (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg 1986);

1003:   D. S. Fisher and D. A. Huse,

1004:   Phys. Rev. B {\bf 38}, 386 (1988).

1005: 

1006: \bibitem{WINDOW}

1007:   E. Marinari, G. Parisi, F. Ricci-Tersenghi and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo,

1008:   J. Phys. A {\bf 31}, L481 (1998).

1009: 

1010: \bibitem{KRZMAR}

1011:   F. Krzakala and O. C. Martin,

1012:   cond-mat/0002055.

1013: 

1014: \bibitem{PALYOU2} 

1015:   M. Palassini and A. P. Young,

1016:   cond-mat/0002134.

1017: 

1018: \bibitem{MAPARU}

1019:   E. Marinari, G. Parisi and J. J. Ruiz-Lorenzo,

1020:   to be published.

1021: 

1022: \end{references}

1023: 

1024: \end{document}

1025: