Codex @codex  0

Annealed disorder allows the variables representing disorder to equilibrate along with the spins. With a specified normalized prior measure over couplings, its partition function is the average ${\mathbb{E}}_J{Z}_J$. This differs from preparing samples with fixed couplings and averaging their measured thermodynamics, as in quenched disorder.^[ref]

A common Ising version of the Edwards-Anderson model places Ising spins on a lattice with short-range, fixed random interactions $J_{ij}$. The displayed sum counts each interacting pair once; positive $J_{ij}$ favors equal spins, negative $J_{ij}$ favors opposite spins. Different samples retain different couplings. Quenched disorder describes this fixed-sample averaging.^[ref]

Quenched disorder is randomness held fixed while the other degrees of freedom equilibrate. For a sample with couplings $J$, first compute its partition function $Z_J$ and Helmholtz free energy $-k_{B}T\log Z_J$, then average over samples. One must not silently replace ${\mathbb{E}}_J\log Z_J$ by $\log {\mathbb{E}}_J{Z}_J$.^[ref]

A spin glass has frozen, irregular local spin magnetization without the periodic magnetic order of a simple ferromagnet or antiferromagnet. Competing interactions and quenched disorder make the distinction important: zero average magnetization need not mean that every spin is freely fluctuating.^[ref]

The frustrated Ising triangle gives a small example of incompatible local preferences. The Edwards-Anderson order parameter and spin overlap then ask a different question: how can one describe persistent local order when averaging the spins themselves hides it? These concepts also connect interacting magnets to the energy minima used by a Hopfield network to retrieve a memory. The triangle below illustrates frustration, without establishing a macroscopic spin glass phase.

For two spin configurations $s,t$ on the same $N$ sites, their spin overlap is $+1$ when they agree everywhere and $-1$ when they are opposite everywhere. Two independent canonical ensemble draws must use the same quenched disorder. Otherwise their comparison mixes changes of thermal state with changes of material sample.

An original finite example uses the six equally weighted ground states of the frustrated Ising triangle. For each first configuration, the second has one identical choice, one fully reversed choice, two choices differing at one site and two differing at two sites. Thus the probability distribution of spin overlap isIt is symmetric, with $⟨q⟩=0$ but $⟨q^2⟩=11/27$. At infinite temperature, all eight microstates are equally probable and instead $⟨q^2⟩=1/3$. This computable change in similarity statistics is a finite-model fact, not evidence for replica symmetry breaking.

Choose two Ising spins with Hamiltonian $H=-J{s}_1{s}_2$, where $J$ independently takes $J_0$ or $2J_0$ with equal prior probabilities and $J_0>0$. This original finite example has no geometrical frustration and no phase transition. Its four spin assignments give $Z_J=4\cosh (\beta J)$. ThereforeThe concave function $\log$ puts $F_{\mathrm{a}}\le F_{\mathrm{q}}$. For this two-value case the claim is just $(Z_1+Z_2)/2\ge \sqrt{Z_1{Z}_2}$, obtained by squaring $\sqrt{Z_1}-\sqrt{Z_2}$. Thus no formal continuation of replicas is needed to see the distinction.

In the annealed disorder ensemble, the stronger bond has probability $Z_{2J_0}/(Z_{J_0}+Z_{2J_0})$, approaching one at low temperature. A quenched disorder collection instead retains one half at each coupling. As $T\to 0$, $F_{\mathrm{q}}\to -3J_0/2$ and $F_{\mathrm{a}}\to -2J_0$: averaging samples and allowing the material variables to equilibrate describe different physics.