arXiv:cond-mat/0310545 · Physical Review E
Reply to “Comment on ‘Fluctuation-dissipation relations in the nonequilibrium critical dynamics of Ising models’ ”
Peter Mayer, Ludovic Berthier, Juan P. Garrahan, Peter Sollich A
Abstract
We have recently shown that in nonequilibrium spin systems at criticality the limit ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ of the fluctuation-dissipation ratio $X(t,{t}_{w})$ for $t⪢{t}_{w}⪢1$ can be measured using observables such as magnetization or energy [Phys. Rev. E 68, 016116 (2003)]. Pleimling argues in a Comment [preceding paper, Phys. Rev. 70, 018101 (2004)] on our paper that for such observables correlation and response functions are dominated by one-time quantities dependent only on $t$, and are therefore not suitable for a determination of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$. Using standard scaling forms of correlation and response functions, as used by Pleimling, we show that our data do have a genuine two-time dependence and allow $X(t,{t}_{w})$ and ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ to be measured, so that Pleimling's criticisms are easily refuted. We also compare with predictions from renormalization-group calculations, which are consistent with our numerical observation of a fluctuation-dissipation plot for the magnetization that is very close to a straight line. A key point remains that coherent observables make measurements of ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ easier than the traditionally used incoherent ones, producing fluctuation-dissipation plots whose slope is close to ${X}^{\ensuremath{\infty}}$ over a much larger range.