text:
# Exact multilocal renormalization on the effective action : application to the random sine Gordon model statics and non-equilibrium dynamics

## I Introduction

Recently a method was devised, the exact multilocal renormalization group (EMRG) chauvepld , to obtain perturbative renormalization group equations from first principles, in a controlled way to any order, and for arbitrary smooth cutoff function. It starts, as numerous previous exact RG studies wegner\_houghton ; morijmp ; revue ; GRN ; NCS1 ; morrisderiv ; hughes\_liu ; hubbard ; shukla ; rudnick ; tissier , from the exact Polchinski-Wilson renormalization group equation polchinski ; wilson\_kogut  for the action functional $`𝒮(\varphi )`$. The next step however consists in splitting it onto local and higher multilocal components scheidl , and integrating exactly all multilocal components in terms of the local part. This yields an exact and very general RG flow equation for the local part of the action, i.e. a function, expressed in an expansion in powers of the local part.

The aim of this paper is first to develop a similar method using instead the effective action functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$. This is needed because $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$ is a very important physical object, both as the generating function of proper vertices, and related to the probability distribution of an arbitrary macroscopic mode $`\varphi _q`$ zinn-justin . A multilocal expansion is also performed and yields a RG equation again in terms of the local part. The major advantage compared to the previous method chauvepld  is that one actually follows directly physical observables and that correlations are immediately obtained (while in the previous method one had to use a second formula to compute correlations from the flowing action). The price to pay is a slightly more involved RG equation, but this inconvenience arises only at higher orders. As a simple check the $`\eta `$ exponent of the $`O(N)`$ model will be recovered to lowest order.

A motivation to develop such EMRG methods comes from disordered models. The physics of these being more complex than standard field theories for pure systems, it is useful to be able to control the RG procedure. This is crucial for instance in the functional RG (FRG) which describes pinned elastic manifolds fisher\_functional\_rg ; balents\_fisher ; giamarchi\_vortex\_long , relevant for e.g. superconductors and density waves blatter-vortex-review ; nattermann\_scheidl\_revue ; giam\_vortex\_revue ; giam\_vortex\_revue2 ; gruner-revue-cdw , and the EMRG has been applied to study that problem chauvepld ; scheidl . Here, and this is the second aim of this paper, we will study another instance of a glass phase, arising in the random phase sine Gordon model excluding vortices, as discovered by Cardy and Ostlund cardy-desordre-rg . This model has been studied extensively, in its statics villain-cosine-realrg ; toner-log-2 ; giamarchi\_vortex\_long ; hwa\_fisher ; ludwig\_co ; rsb ; num  and its dynamics goldschmidt-dynamics-co ; tsaishapir , as one of the simplest but non trivial example of a topologically ordered glass, a continuation to two dimension carpentier ; nattermann\_scheidl\_revue  of the fixed point describing the Bragg glass phase in three dimension giamarchi\_vortex\_long . We first show that the present method allows to recover very simply and in a controlled way previous results for correlation functions in the statics and in the equilibrium dynamics. Next we obtain new results, such as the full scaling functions for both equilibrium and non-equilibrium dynamics. We obtain the corresponding exponents $`\lambda `$ and $`\theta `$. We also obtain the full and non trivial behavior of the fluctuation dissipation ratio in the glass phase.

The outline of the paper is as follows. First in Section II we derive the EMRG method for the effective action, and give the explicit general lowest order RG equations. In Section III we apply these RG equations to the pure $`O(N)`$ model, as a test of the method. In Section IV we consider the Cardy Ostlund model statics. In Section V we study the CO model equilibrium dynamics. Section VI is devoted to the non-equilibrium dynamics of the CO model. All calculational details are contained in the appendices.

## II Method

### II.1 Exact RG method

We want to study interacting bosonic degrees of freedom described by a set of fields denoted $`\varphi \varphi _x^i`$ where $`x`$ is the position in space and $`i`$ a general label denoting any quantity which will not undergo the coarse-graining (e.g. fields indices, spin, replica indices, additional coordinate). The problem is defined by an action functional:

$`𝒮(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi :G^1:\varphi +𝒱(\varphi )`$ (1)
and by the functional integral (i.e. the partition function) $`Z=D\varphi e^{𝒮(\varphi )}`$. The action consists of a quadratic part ($`G_{ij}^{xy}=G_{ji}^{yx}`$ is a symmetric invertible matrix) and $`𝒱(\varphi )`$ the interaction, a functional of $`\varphi `$. The notation $`:`$ denotes full contractions over $`x,i`$ (i.e. $`\varphi :G^1:\varphi =_{ij}_{xy}\varphi _x^i(G^1)_{ij}^{xy}\varphi _y^j`$). We will denote $`_xd^dx`$ where $`d`$ is the space dimension, and $`_q\frac{d^dq}{(2\pi )^d}`$ for integration in Fourier. Our aim is to compute the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$, i.e. the generating function of proper vertices, since once it is known, all correlation functions are known being simply obtained as sums of all tree diagrams drawn using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. For all observables to be well defined one usually requires both an ultraviolet UV cutoff (e.g. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ in momentum space) and an infrared IR cutoff (noted here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l=e^l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$). For example, in a single scalar theory one chooses $`GG_l`$ with:

$`G_l^q=q^2c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}},{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}})`$ (2)
in Fourier. Here $`c(z,s)`$ is a cutoff function which decreases to zero as $`z0`$ or $`s\mathrm{}`$ and for convenience, see below, we choose $`c(z,z)=0`$. To study finite momentum observables in a massless theory one is also interested in the zero IR cutoff limit, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l=0`$ with $`GG_{l=\mathrm{}}`$ denoting $`c(z)=c(\mathrm{},z)`$.

In this paper we will use that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$ satisfies the following exact RG functional equation when the quadratic part $`G`$ is varied (for a fixed $`𝒱(\varphi )`$):

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}TrG^1:[\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }]^1+\frac{1}{2}\varphi :G^1:\varphi $$
(3)
Derivations and more details are given in Appendix A. This can be used to express how the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(\varphi )`$ of the model (1) with $`GG_l`$ depends on the IR cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$. Indeed the following property holds:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\mathrm{ln}G_l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi :G_l^1:\varphi +𝒰_l(\varphi )`$ (4)
with $`𝒰_l(\varphi )𝒰_{G_l}(\varphi )`$ satisfies the exact flow equation:

$$_l𝒰_l(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}Tr_lG_l:(G_l^1G_l^1(1+G_l:\frac{\delta ^2𝒰_l}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi })^1)$$
(5)
with the initial condition $`𝒰_{l=0}(\varphi )=𝒱(\varphi )`$, simply reflecting that the effective action equals the action when all fluctuations are suppressed (at $`l=0`$ where the running propagator satisfies $`G_{l=0}=0^+`$ from the property $`c(z,z)=0`$). The above equation (3) simply expresses how $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$ in (4) depends on the final value $`GG_l`$. The zero IR cutoff limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l=0`$ can then studied by integrating the above equation up to $`l=\mathrm{}`$.

For actual calculations, simpler and useful choices read, in momentum space:

$`G_l^q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}(c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2))`$ (6)
where the cutoff function $`c(x)`$ satisfies $`c(0)=1`$ and $`c(\mathrm{})=0`$. With the choice $`c(x)=1/(1+2x)`$ one finds the massive, Pauli-Villars like, propagator:

$`G_l^q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2+m^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2+M^2}}`$ (7)
with $`m=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2`$, $`M=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$, where the IR cutoff mass $`mm_l`$ is lowered from $`m=\mathrm{}`$ ($`l=0`$) to $`m=0`$ ($`l=\mathrm{}`$) (and $`_lm_m`$). Whenever one needs a stronger UV cutoff and one may use:

$`G_m^q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2+m^2}}c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}})`$ (8)
a different choice.

The full exact RG equation (5) can also be expanded in series of $`𝒰_l`$ as:

$`_l𝒰_l(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr_lG_l:{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒰_l(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr_lG_l:{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒰_l(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }}:G_l:{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒰_l(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }}+O(𝒰_l^3)`$ (9)
which admits the graphical representation given in Fig.1.

To summarize, the philosophy of the method is, in a sense the exact opposite of the Wilson one, since it amounts to start from the action with no fluctuations $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, and then add modes and their fluctuations until one reaches the desired theory $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. In that limit one expects that the effective action reaches a fixed point form, given by the asymptotic solution of (5) at large $`l`$.

### II.2 Multilocal expansion

To handle the formidably complicated functional equation (5) we follow the method introduced in chauvepld  and expand the interaction functional $`𝒰_l`$ in local, bilocal, trilocal etc.. components as:

$`𝒰_l(\varphi )={\displaystyle _x}U_l(\varphi _x)+{\displaystyle _{xy}}V_l(\varphi _x,\varphi _y,xy)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{xyz}}W_l(\varphi _x,\varphi _y,\varphi _z,x,y,z)+..`$ (10)
The local part depends only on the function $`U_l(\varphi )`$, uniquely defined from the projection operator $`\overline{P_1}`$. This operator is fully defined in chauvepld  (see also Appendix B). We recall here only its action on a bilocal operator $`F(\varphi _x,\varphi _y,xy)`$, namely $`(\overline{P_1}F)(\varphi )=_yF(\varphi ,\varphi ,y)`$. It can be used to split an action depending only on two points into:

$`{\displaystyle _{xy}}F(\varphi _x,\varphi _y,xy)={\displaystyle _x}(\overline{P}_1F)(\varphi _x)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{xy}}((1P_1)F)(\varphi _x,\varphi _y,xy)`$ (11)
where, by definition, $`(P_1F)(\varphi ,\psi ,z)=\delta (z)_yF(\varphi ,\psi ,y)`$, in such a way that the second part is properly bi-local (i.e. $`(\overline{P}_1(1P_1)F)(\varphi )=0`$). A similar construction holds for higher multilocal operators .

The idea is then to project the functional equation (5) so that the bilocal, trilocal etc.. can be expressed exactly in terms of the local part $`U_l`$ only. One notices that there is a simplest way to do it so that the bilocal part is $`VO(U^2)`$, trilocal $`WO(U^3)`$ etc.. This determines one possible splitting of the higher multilocal components (e.g. bilocal vs trilocal) as is represented in the Fig. 2, and further explained in chauvepld . This expansion is clearly suited to the situations where the flowing functional $`𝒰_l`$ becomes ”small” and dominated by its local part (e.g. in the context of a dimensional expansion), but it has a more general validity, since in all cases it is an exact expansion in series of the local part of the full effective action functional.

We now pursue the analysis exactly to order $`O(U_l^2)`$, sufficient to a number of one loop applications. Details are given in Appendix B. The bilocal part is exactly given by:

$$V_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,x)=\frac{1}{2}(F_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,x)\delta (x)_yF_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,y))$$
(12)
with:

$`F_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,x)={\displaystyle _0^l}dl^{}(^1.G_l^{}^x.^2)(^1.G_l^{}^x.^2)`$
$`e^{\frac{1}{2}^1.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.^1\frac{1}{2}^2.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.^2^1.G_{l^{}l}^x.^2}U_l^{}(\varphi _1)U_l^{}(\varphi _2)`$
(13)
to all orders (by definition), and the resulting exact RG equation for the local part of the effective action (i.e. the exact $`\beta `$-function up to $`O(U_l^3)`$) is:

$`_lU_l(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{l,ij}^{x=0}_i_jU_l(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}G_{l,ij}^x_j_kU_l(\varphi )(G_l^x)_{km}_m_iU_l(\varphi )`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}^1.(G_l^xG_l^0).^2{\displaystyle _0^l}dl^{}(^1.G_l^{}^x.^2)(^1.G_l^{}^x.^2)e^{\frac{1}{2}^1.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.^1\frac{1}{2}^2.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.^2^1.G_{l^{}l}^x.^2}U_l^{}(\varphi _1)U_l^{}(\varphi _2)|_{\varphi _1=\varphi _2=\varphi }`$
We use the following notations: $`_i_{\varphi ^i}`$, $`_i^1`$ (resp. $`_i^2`$) denotes derivation with respect to the first argument (resp. second argument) of a function of two vectors $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$, $`^1G^{xy}^2_{ij}G_{ij}^{xy}_i^1_j^2`$ etc.. Also one notes in real space $`G^{xy}G^{xy}`$ and $`G_{l^{}l}^x=G_l^{}^xG_l^x=_l^{}^lG_{l^{\prime \prime }}^xdl^{\prime \prime }`$. Note that the first line contains two one loop diagrams (tadpole and bubble) with one ”on shell” propagators, and the second line represents a sum over diagrams with at least two loops.

## III Application to the O(N) model.

We first illustrate the method on the O(N) model defined by (1) with

$`𝒱(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{g_2}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}\varphi _x^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_4}{4!}}{\displaystyle _x}(\varphi _x^2)^2`$ (15)
$`\varphi _x`$ being a N-component vector, $`\varphi _x^2=_i(\varphi _x^i)^2`$. The propagator is diagonal, and using an infrared cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$, it reads $`GG_l`$ with:

$`G_{l,ij}^q=\delta _{ij}G_l^q`$ (16)
with $`G_l^q`$ as in (2). We study this model near the dimension 4, in $`d=4ϵ`$, and compute the effective action to order $`O(ϵ^2)`$. For some explicit calculations, we will further use the form (6) with the following convenient parametrization and notation for the cut-off function $`c(z)`$:

$`c(z)={\displaystyle _0^+\mathrm{}}𝑑a\widehat{c}(a)e^{az}{\displaystyle _a}e^{ax}`$ (17)
The condition $`c(0)=1`$ imposes $`_a=1`$.

### III.1 Derivation of the $`\beta `$-functions and fixed points.

The local part of the running effective action admits the polynomial expansion:

$`U_l(\varphi )=g_{0,l}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{2,l}}{2!}}\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{4,l}}{4!}}(\varphi ^2)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{6,l}}{6!}}(\varphi ^2)^3+..`$
(18)
From power counting, it is more convenient to introduce the dimensionless couplings $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2n,l}`$ defined from:

$`g_{2,l}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}`$
$`g_{4,l}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^ϵ\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}`$ (19)
and more generally $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2n,l}=g_{2n,l}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{(d2)nd}`$ which flows to some fixed point values $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2n}^{}`$, as discussed below. Since $`\stackrel{~}{g}_6^{}O(ϵ^3)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2n}^{}O(ϵ^n)`$ for $`n3`$ (see Appendix C for the RG equation of $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{6,l}`$ and the free energy $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{0,l}`$), we drop from now on these higher monomials and study only the coupled RG equation for $`\stackrel{~}{g}_4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}_2`$ easily obtained by inserting (18) into (14) as detailed in Appendix C:

$`_l\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}=ϵ\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}{\displaystyle \frac{N+8}{3}}\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2=\beta [\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}]`$ (20)
$`_l\stackrel{~}{g}_{2l}=2\stackrel{~}{g}_{2l}+{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{6}}\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}^2`$ (21)
with the integrals:

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(0)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{2+ϵ}{\displaystyle _q}_lG_l^q,\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(1)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^ϵ{\displaystyle _q}_lG_l^qG_l^q`$ (22)
$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}`$ is given in (178) where we show that the coefficient of the term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}^2`$ in (21) is well defined in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. One finds that $`\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(0)}=\stackrel{~}{I}^{(0)}`$ is $`l`$-independent and that $`lim_l\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(1)}=I^{(1)}`$ is universal (independent of $`c(s)`$) in dimension $`d=4`$:

$`\stackrel{~}{I}^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑ssc^{}(s)+O(ϵ)`$ (23)
$`\stackrel{~}{I}^{(1)}=S_d{\displaystyle _{s>0}}(2s)^{ϵ/2}c^{}(s)(c(s)1)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}+O(ϵ)`$
where $`S_d`$ is the unit sphere area divided by $`(2\pi )^d`$ and we recall $`c^{}(s)<0`$. Finally eq. (20,21) together with (22) lead to the fixed point values

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{48\pi ^2}{N+8}}ϵ+O(ϵ^2)`$ (24)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{12}}\stackrel{~}{I}^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{}+O(ϵ^2)`$ (25)
This fixed point describes the standard $`O(N)`$ critical system exactly at the critical temperature $`T=T_c`$. The initial conditions which end up for $`l=\mathrm{}`$ exactly at the fixed point describe the critical manifold.

Besides we obtain the correction of the critical exponent characterizing the divergence of the magnetic susceptibility near the critical temperature from the positive eigenvalue $`\lambda _l`$ (corresponding to the instable direction)

$`_l(\stackrel{~}{g}_{2l}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})=\lambda _l(\stackrel{~}{g}_{2l}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})`$ (26)
$`\lambda _l=2(1{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{2(N+8)}}ϵ)`$ (27)
which gives correctly blz  the exponent $`\gamma `$ to order $`ϵ`$

$`\gamma ={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\lambda ^{}}}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{2(N+8)}}ϵ+O(ϵ^2)`$ (28)
### III.2 Computation of the $`2`$ and $`4`$ points proper vertices.

We now compute the effective action on the critical manifold, up to order $`O(ϵ)`$ for the local part, and $`O(ϵ^2)`$ for the bi-local part (i.e. the $`q`$ dependent part), in the limit of large $`l`$. Eq. (12) allows to construct the bilocal term in the effective action by inserting (18) in (13). As we restrict our analysis to order $`ϵ^2`$, we do not consider monomials higher than $`(\varphi ^2)^2`$ in (18), and therefore we expand the exponential in (13) to order one. Using the combinatorics already explained for the local part in Appendix C, one gets

$`V_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,q)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1)F_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,x)`$ (29)
$`F_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,x)={\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}\varphi _1\varphi _2{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^xG_{l^{}l}^x\stackrel{~}{g}_{4l^{}}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{N+4}{(3!)^2}}\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(3!)^2}}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)^2){\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^x\stackrel{~}{g}_{4l^{}}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$
where we have not written terms of the form $`f(\varphi _i,x)`$ (i.e. which depend only on one field argument) as they cancel out from the effective action. To this order in $`ϵ`$ ($`O(ϵ^2)`$) there are no other contributions. The explicit expressions of $`G_l^x`$ and $`_lG_l^x`$ using (17) are given in Appendix C (181). This bi-local term (29) allows to treat the renormalization of the wave function and compute the exponent $`\eta `$ to order $`ϵ^2`$. A natural way to obtain it, within this method, is to compute directly the 1 particle irreducible (1PI) two-points function and then take the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ (directly at $`T_c`$). Its local part comes from the quadratic contribution of (18) and the bi-local part is the sum of $`G_l^1(q)`$ (4) and the quadratic contribution of (29)

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,ij}^{(2)}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{\delta \varphi _q^i\delta \varphi _q^j}}|_{\varphi =0}=\delta _{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}(q)`$ (30)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}(q)=G_l^1(q)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{18}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1)(G_l^x)^3`$
In the appendix C, we show that it has the form, up to terms of order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^2`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}(q)=G_l^1(q)+\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}q^2\eta [\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}](\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}+\chi ^{(2)}({\displaystyle \frac{q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}}))`$
$`\eta [\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}]={\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{18(4\pi )^4}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2`$ (31)
with the following asymptotic behaviors

$`\chi ^{(2)}(k)ak^2k1`$
$`\chi ^{(2)}(k)\mathrm{ln}kk1`$ (32)
with $`a`$ some non universal (i.e. dependent of the cutoff function (17)) coefficient. The two-point scaling function $`\chi ^{(2)}(k)`$ which is computed here (see Appendix C) for an arbitrary infrared cutoff function $`c(x)`$, is up to an additive constant, independent of the UV cutoff <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1note that in the particular choice used here the same function $`c(x)`$ appears both as IR and UV cutoff. For the particular choice (7) one recovers the result of aharony\_fisher .

The large argument behavior of $`\chi ^{(2)}(k)`$ allows to take the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$, using the fixed point value $`\stackrel{~}{g}_4^{}`$ (24), we have (for $`q\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$):

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}(q)=(q^2q^2{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{2(N+8)^2}}ϵ^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}})`$ (33)
which coincides with the expansion of $`lim_l\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}(q)q^2(q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^\eta `$ to order $`ϵ^2`$ with the universal value of the $`\eta `$ exponent to this order

$`\eta =\eta [\stackrel{~}{g}_4^{}]={\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{2(N+8)^2}}ϵ^2`$ (34)
in agreement with standard results blz .

Let us focus on the construction of the quartic term in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(\varphi )`$, obtained from the quartic contribution of (18) and (29). After combinatorial manipulations, we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{\text{quart}}={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g_4}_l\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^ϵ}{4!}}{\displaystyle _{q_i}^{}}(\varphi _{q_1}\varphi _{q_2})(\varphi _{q_3}\varphi _{q_4})`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g_4}_l^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(3!)^2}}{\displaystyle _{q_i}^{}}(({\displaystyle \frac{N+4}{4}})(\varphi _{q_1}\varphi _{q_2})(\varphi _{q_3}\varphi _{q_4})`$
$`+(\varphi _{q_1}\varphi _{q_3})(\varphi _{q_2}\varphi _{q_4}))\chi ^{(4)}_l(q_3+q_4)`$ (35)
with $`\chi _l^{(4)}(q)`$ defined by

$`\chi _l^{(4)}(q)={\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1)(G_l^x)^2+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)`$ (36)
and where we used the notation $`_{q_i}^{}_{q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4}(2\pi )^d\delta ^{(d)}(q_1+q_2+q_3+q_4)`$. The local term, i.e. the first line in (35), contains a contribution of order $`ϵ^2`$ which is divergent in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. Indeed, expanding it to second order gives $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^ϵ=\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}(1+ϵ\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)+O(ϵ^3)`$ and at first sight this term would lead to a divergent contribution in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. However, the analysis of $`\chi _l^{(4)}(q)=\chi ^{(4)}(q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)`$ shows the following asymptotic behaviors

$`\chi ^{(4)}(k)bk^2k1`$ (37)
$`\chi ^{(4)}(k){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(k^2)k1`$ (38)
with $`b`$ a non universal constant. When considering the large $`l`$ limit of the effective action, we are interested in the large argument behavior of $`\chi ^{(4)}(k)`$ (38). Using the fixed point value $`\stackrel{~}{g}_4^{}`$ (24), one gets that this cancels exactly the divergence when $`l\mathrm{}`$ due to the local term. Thus we obtain:

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{\text{quart}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^2ϵ}{(N+8)}}[\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^ϵ{\displaystyle _{q_i}^{}}(\varphi _{q_1}\varphi _{q_2})(\varphi _{q_3}\varphi _{q_4})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{4ϵ}{(N+8)}}{\displaystyle _{q_i}^{}}(({\displaystyle \frac{N+4}{4}})(\varphi _{q_1}\varphi _{q_2})(\varphi _{q_3}\varphi _{q_4})`$
$`+(\varphi _{q_1}\varphi _{q_3})(\varphi _{q_2}\varphi _{q_4}))\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{|q_3+q_4|}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}})]`$ (39)
which is independent of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ to order $`O(ϵ^2)`$. Note that in the large $`N`$ limit one recovers correctly the ”screened” bray  four point renormalized vertex $`ϵq^ϵ`$ (where $`q`$ is the transfer momentum).

The result of this analysis is that we have constructed the large scale theory by obtaining directly a fixed point for the effective action, keeping the UV cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ finite, which is the relevant object for statistical physics, and for an arbitrary cutoff function.

### III.3 Relation with field-theoretical methods

It is interesting to make the connection with standard field-theoretical methods for critical phenomena. There one is usually interested in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$. Note that in this limit (33) diverges. It is however possible to define a “renormalized” effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(\varphi _R)`$ which is well defined in that limit.

One can first check directly on (33) the standard Callan-Symanzik (CS) ”bare” RG equation zinn-justin  for the physical correlation function of the massless theory at the fixed point

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0{\displaystyle \frac{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}\eta )(\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)})(q)=0+O(ϵ^3)`$ (40)
One can also connect to the CS equation for the renormalized theory. One defines:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(\sqrt{Z}\varphi )`$ (41)
where $`ZZ(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0},\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l})`$ is the so called ”wave-function renormalization” factor such that

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(q)=m_R^2+q^2+O(q^4)`$ (42)
Using (30) and noting that $`G_l^1(q)=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}{c^{}(0)}+Aq^2+O((\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0})^2)`$, with $`A=\frac{c^{\prime \prime }(0)}{2c^{}(0)^2}`$ one finds the renormalized mass $`m_R^2=\frac{1}{A}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2(\frac{2}{|c^{}(0)|}+\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l})`$ and $`Z=\frac{1}{A}(1+\eta (\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l})\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}))`$. One can see that up to higher order terms, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ plays the role of the renormalized mass. From (31) one finds, to order $`(ϵ\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2,\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^3)`$

$`m_R_{m_R}|_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}\mathrm{ln}Z({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}},\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l})=_l\mathrm{ln}Z=\eta [\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}]`$ (43)
these derivatives being taken at fixed $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}`$. This is the standard definition for the $`\eta (g)`$ function. One can go further, define a renormalized coupling $`g_R`$ , e.g. through $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(4)}(q=0)=m_R^ϵg_R`$, with $`g_R=\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}`$ up to higher order terms, and derive the CS equations for the renormalized vertices. Here, we just mention one such equation zinn-justin  for the “renormalized” two-point vertex function in the critical regime $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ but finite

$`(_l+\eta [\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}])\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{R(2)}(q)0q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_l1`$ (44)
obtained using the large $`k`$ behavior of $`\chi ^{(2)}(k)`$ (32). We get again the universal value of the $`\eta `$ exponent form $`\eta =\eta [\stackrel{~}{g}_4^{}]`$ (34).

The connection between the EMRG method and the standard field theoretical methods in the massless scheme (i.e. imposing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(q=0)=0`$) is more subtle here (since one should use $`l=\mathrm{}`$ strictly).

## IV Cardy Ostlund Model: Statics

In this section, we show how this EMRG method can be used to study perturbatively the Cardy Ostlund model cardy-desordre-rg  near its glass transition.

### IV.1 Model, choice of propagator

This model is a random phase Sine-Gordon model which can represent an XY model in a random magnetic field where the vortices are excluded by hand. As mentioned in the introduction, the statics of this model has been extensively studied using various methods villain-cosine-realrg ; toner-log-2 ; giamarchi\_vortex\_long ; hwa\_fisher ; ludwig\_co ; rsb ; num . The system at equilibrium is described by the partition function $`Z=D\varphi e^{H^{CO}[\varphi ]/T}`$, $`T`$ being the temperature with the hamiltonian

$$H^{CO}[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}d^2x(\varphi _x)^2d^2x(h_x^1\mathrm{cos}\varphi _x+h_x^2\mathrm{sin}\varphi _x)$$
(45)
whith $`\varphi _x]\mathrm{},+\mathrm{}[`$ as there are no vortices, where $`𝐡_x=(h_x^1,h_x^2)`$ is a $`2d`$ random Gaussian vector of zero average with fluctuations decorrelated from site to site:

$`h_x^ih_x^{}^j=2g_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2\delta _{ij}\delta ^{(2)}(xx^{})`$ (46)
The quenched average over this random variable is performed by the means of replicas, which is used here as a simple trick to restore translational invariance and to organize perturbation theory. After averaging over the disorder, one obtains

$`\overline{\mathrm{ln}Z}=\underset{n0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{Z^n}1}{n}},\overline{Z^n}={\displaystyle D\varphi ^ae^{\frac{H^{\text{rep}}[\varphi ^a]}{T}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{H^{\text{rep}}[\varphi ^a]}{T}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}{\displaystyle d^2x\varphi _x^a\varphi _x^b\delta _{a,b}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}{T^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ab}{}}{\displaystyle _x}\mathrm{cos}(\varphi _x^a\varphi _x^b)`$ (47)
where $`a,b=1,..,n`$ are replica indices. We use the same propagator as for the O(N) model, the Gaussian part of (47) being diagonal in replicas, one has

$`G_{l}^{q}{}_{ab}{}^{}=\delta _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{q^2}}(c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2))`$ (48)
with the same decomposition of the cutoff function $`c(x)`$ (17). Notice that the hamiltonian $`H^{\text{rep}}`$ possesses the statistical tilt symmetry (STS) brezin\_sts : the last term in (47) is invariant under the change of variable $`\varphi _x^a\varphi _x^a+u_x`$ which protects the diagonal (in replica space) quadratic term in the effective action to all orders in perturbation theory hwa\_fisher ; carpentier .

### IV.2 $`\beta `$-functions and fixed point

For this model, the Fourier representation in the fields (169) is more natural. Although only one harmonic is present in the starting hamiltonian (47), higher harmonics are generated by perturbation theory and we write the local interacting part of the effective action (10) as

$`U_l(\varphi )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2{\displaystyle \underset{K0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{g_l^K}{T^2}}e^{iK.\varphi }`$ (49)
where $`K=(K_1,\mathrm{},K_n)`$, $`\varphi =(\varphi ^1,\mathrm{},\varphi ^n)`$ are $`n`$-components vectors and one defines $`K.K^{}=_aK_aK_a^{}`$. The sum is over all $`K`$ such that $`K_a`$ are integers not all zero with $`_aK_a=0`$. $`U_l(\varphi )`$ is real, imposing $`g_l^K=g_l^K`$, and the symmetry under replica indices permutation, which is assumed here, imposes $`g_l^K=g_l^{\sigma (K)}`$, $`\sigma (K)`$ being any vector obtained from $`K`$ by a permutation of the $`K_a`$. By inserting (49) in (14) (see also (171) in Appendix B) one obtains the RG equation for the local part to second order in $`g_K`$:

$`_lg_l^K=(2{\displaystyle \frac{TK^2}{4\pi }})g_l^K+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{J}_l^{(1)}}{2T^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{P,Q,P+Q=K}{}}g_l^Pg_l^Q(P.Q)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{P,Q,P+Q=K}{}}(P.Q)^3{\displaystyle _0^l}dl^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_{l,l^{}}^2g_l^{}^Pg_l^{}^Q`$ (50)
with the integrals

$`\stackrel{~}{J}_l^1=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2{\displaystyle _x}G_l^xG_l^x`$ (51)
$`\stackrel{~}{J}_{l,l^{}}^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2{\displaystyle _x}(G_l^xG_l^{x=0})G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^x\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^4`$
$`\times e^{(\frac{P^2}{2}+\frac{Q^2}{2})G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}+P.QG_{l^{}l}^x}`$ (52)
The glass transition temperature $`T_c`$ below which the charges of minimal modulus such that $`K_{1,1}=(0,..,1,..,1,..,0)`$, $`K_{1,1}^2=2`$ become relevant is

$`T_c={\displaystyle \frac{8\pi }{K_{1,1}^2}}=4\pi `$ (53)
and a small parameter $`\tau =(T_cT)/T_c>0`$ can be defined, which allows to construct perturbatively the effective action of this model (47) in its glass phase. Indeed just below $`T_c`$ the higher harmonics are irrelevant (the eigenvalues $`(2\frac{TK^2}{4\pi })`$ are negative and of order one). Such irrelevant higher harmonics include for instance $`3`$ replicas term <sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2The higher replica operators used here are defined in terms of excluded replica sums. They thus form a different basis than the one used in, e.g. FRG studies of zero temperature fixed point in higher dimension fisher\_functional\_rg ; balents\_fisher ; giamarchi\_vortex\_long . These are defined in terms of unrestricted sums directly related to the cumulant of the disorder, which is not the case here $`g_l^{1,2,1}_{abc}e^{i(\varphi _x^a2\varphi _x^b+\varphi _x^c)}`$, corresponding to $`K_{1,2,1}^2=4`$. We denote $`g_l=g_l^{1,1}`$ the coupling constant associated to $`K_{1,1}`$, and obtain its RG flow from (50) by taking into account the $`2(n2)`$ possible fusions such that $`P+Q=K_{1,1}`$, $`P,Q`$ being themselves obtained by a permutation of the components of $`K_{1,1}`$ ($`g_l^P=g_l^Q=g_l`$) with $`P.Q=1`$ cardy-desordre-rg . After some transformations detailed in the Appendix D one obtains

$`_lg_l=(2{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi }})g_l_lg_l^2`$ (54)
$`_l=2\gamma _0(0){\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}}\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{T_c}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}}(\gamma _0(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _0(0))(e^{T_c\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})}1)+O(\tau )`$ (55)
where we used the dimensionless variable $`\stackrel{~}{x}=x\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ and defined:

$`G_l^{}^x=T\gamma _{\mu =ll^{}}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$
$`G_{l^{}l}^x=T\gamma _{\mu =ll^{}}(\stackrel{~}{x})`$ (56)
where the two functions $`\gamma _\mu (x)`$ and $`\gamma _\mu (x)`$ are given in (198).

As shown in the appendix, we can transform the integral over $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ in (Eq. 55) and express its cutoff dependence in a simple way. One finds $`_{\mathrm{}}=\frac{4\pi }{T_c^2}e^{(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}`$ yielding for $`T<T_c`$, the stable fixed point of the RG flow is given by

$`g^{}=8\pi e^{(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}\tau +O(\tau ^2)`$ (57)
with $`\tau =(T_cT)/T_c`$ and $`\gamma _E=0.577216`$ the Euler constant.

### IV.3 Bilocal term and 2-point correlation function.

Eq. (170) allows to construct the bilocal term in the effective action to lowest order (i.e. $`O(\tau ^2)`$) using a Fourier representation (169):

$`V_l(\varphi ,\psi ,x)={\displaystyle \underset{K,P}{}}\widehat{V}_l^{KPx}e^{iK\varphi +iP\psi }`$ (58)
Just below $`T_c`$, only the charges of minimal modulus $`K_{1,1}^2=2`$ are relevant, therefore to this order the sums in (170) are restricted to such harmonics. By inserting (49) into (170) one has

$`\widehat{V}_l^{KPq}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1)\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}`$
$`\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}={\displaystyle \frac{(K.P)^2}{T^4}}{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^x`$
$`e^{\frac{K^2+P^2}{2}G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}}e^{K.PG_{l^{}l}^x}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^4g_l^{}^Kg_l^{}^P`$ (59)
where $`K,P`$ are of the form $`K_{1,1}`$, and thus $`g_l^K=g_l^P=g_l`$. Performing the integral over $`l^{}`$ as explained in Appendix D we have:

$$\widehat{F}_l^{KP\stackrel{~}{x}}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^4}{T^2}g_l^2(\frac{1}{T^2}(e^{T_cK.P\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})}1)+K.P\frac{\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})}{T})$$
(60)
with $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx`$. For the charges $`K,P`$ we are considering here, there are a priori $`5`$ different cases of $`K.P=2,1,0,1,2`$ to consider. However we see immediately on the previous expression (60) that the charges such that $`K.P=0`$ do not contribute to the bilocal part of the effective action (they correspond to four replicas terms $`g_l^2_{abcd}e^{i(\varphi _a\varphi _b)+i(\psi _c\psi _d)}`$). We show in Appendix D that $`\widehat{V}_l^{K,P,q}`$ takes the form, up to terms of order $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)^2`$

$`\widehat{V}_l^{K,P,q}=A_lq^2(\delta _{K,P}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}+\chi ^{K.P}({\displaystyle \frac{q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}}))`$ (61)
$`A_l={\displaystyle \frac{\pi g_l^2}{4T_c^4}}e^{2\gamma _E+2_a\mathrm{ln}2a}`$ (62)
where $`\chi ^{K.P}(k)`$ behaves aymptotically at small argument as

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k)\{\begin{array}{cc}a_{K.P}\hfill & K.P2\hfill \\ a_2k^2\hfill & K.P=2\hfill \end{array}k1`$ (63)
and at large argument (relevant for the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$) as

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k)\{\begin{array}{cc}b_{K.P}\frac{1}{k^2}\hfill & K.P=1,2\hfill \\ b_1\frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{k^2}\hfill & K.P=1\hfill \\ \mathrm{ln}k\hfill & K.P=2\hfill \end{array}k1`$ (64)
The large argument behavior of $`\chi ^{K.P}(x)`$ allows to take the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l0`$ of (61) as the logarithmic divergence (which only exists for $`K=P`$) is cancelled. We notice also that only such terms whith $`K=P`$ survive in this limit : in particular, three replicas term as $`g_l^2_{abc}e^{i(\varphi _a\varphi _b)+i(\psi _b\psi _c)}`$ do not exist in the effective action to order $`\tau ^2`$ at the fixed point for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l=0`$. Besides, by inserting the fixed point value $`g^{}`$ (57) in $`A_l`$ (62), we see that the cut-off dependence (encoded in the factor $`e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}`$) disappears in $`lim_l\mathrm{}A_l`$ leading to

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{V}_l^{KPq}=\delta _{K,P}{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{16\pi }}q^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}`$ (65)
Eq. (4) together with (65) allow to construct the bilocal term as

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{biloc}(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T}}{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}{\displaystyle _q}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{c(\frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2})}}\varphi _q^a\varphi _q^a`$ (66)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}{\displaystyle _{x,x^{}}}{\displaystyle _q}\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\widehat{V}_l^{K,Kq}e^{iq(xx^{})}e^{i(\varphi _x^a\varphi _x^b)}e^{i(\varphi _x^{}^a\varphi _x^{}^b)}`$
from which we extract the two-point 1 PI function $`lim_l\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,ab}^{(2)}(q)`$ :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,ab}^{(2)}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi _q^a\delta \varphi _q^b}}|_{\varphi =0}`$ (67)
$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l,ab}^{(2)}(q)={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{Tc(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)}}\delta _{ab}+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau ^2}{4\pi }}q^2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}`$ (68)
from which we extract the correlation function at the fixed point (up to terms of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$)

$`\overline{(\varphi _x\varphi _0)^2}=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}2{\displaystyle _q}(1e^{iqx})[\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}]_{aa}^1`$ (69)
$`=2T_c{\displaystyle _q}{\displaystyle \frac{1e^{iqx}}{q^2}}c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}})(1\tau \tau ^2\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{q}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}\right)c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}))`$
$`2\tau ^2\mathrm{ln}^2(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)+4(1\tau +O(\tau ^2))\mathrm{ln}(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0))`$ (70)
which shows that the amplitude of these anomalous fluctuations in $`\mathrm{ln}^2(|x|\mathrm{\Lambda }_0)`$ is universal (carpentier ).

We finally mention that, due to the STS, the connected correlation function $`\overline{(\varphi _x\varphi (0))^2}\overline{(\varphi _x\varphi (0))(\varphi _x\varphi (0))}`$ is the same as in the pure system.

## V Cardy Ostlund: equilibrium dynamics

We now turn to dynamics, which, within the EMRG framework can be conveniently studied by introducing an infrared cutoff on space only, keeping the full time dependence.

### V.1 Model and propagator.

Within this EMRG framework we want to study the dynamics of the model (45) goldschmidt-dynamics-co ; tsaishapir , described by a Langevin type equation :

$`\eta {\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}u_{xt}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta H^{\text{CO}}}{\delta u_{xt}}}+\zeta (x,t)`$ (71)
where $`\zeta (x,t)=0`$ and $`\zeta (x,t)\zeta (x^{},t^{})=2\eta T\delta (xx^{})\delta (tt^{})`$ is the thermal noise and $`\eta `$ the friction coefficient. A convenient way to study the dynamics is to use the Martin-Siggia-Rose msr  generating functional, on which perturbation theory can be done. Moreover, using the Ito presription, it can be readily averaged over the disorder. The disorder averaged generating functional reads

$`Z[j,\widehat{j}]={\displaystyle 𝒟u𝒟i\widehat{u}e^{S[u,i\widehat{u}]+j:u+\widehat{j}:i\widehat{u}}}`$ (72)
$`S[u,i\widehat{u}]=S_0[u,i\widehat{u}]+S_{\text{int}}[u,i\widehat{u}]`$
$`S_0[u,i\widehat{u}]={\displaystyle _{qt}}i\widehat{u}_{qt}(\eta _t+cq^2)u_{qt}\eta T{\displaystyle _{xt}}i\widehat{u}_{xt}i\widehat{u}_{xt}`$
$`S_{\text{int}}[u,i\widehat{u}]=g_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2{\displaystyle _{xtt^{}}}i\widehat{u}_{xt}i\widehat{u}_{xt^{}}\mathrm{cos}(u_{xt}u_{xt^{}})`$
where $`_t=_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t`$, where in this section the initial time $`t_i`$ is sent to $`t_i=\mathrm{}`$ before taking $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ large, in order to describe equilibrium dynamics.

In our formulation (1), the field $`\varphi `$ is now a two components vector

$`\varphi _{xt}=\left(\begin{array}{c}u_{xt}\\ i\widehat{u}_{xt}\end{array}\right)`$ (75)
and from $`S_0`$ in (72), we compute the inverse bare propagator $`G_l^1`$

$`G_l^1(q)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \delta (tt^{})(\eta _t+cq^2)\\ \delta (tt^{})(\eta _t+cq^2)& 2\eta T\delta (tt^{})\end{array}\right)`$ (78)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2)}}`$ (79)
By inverting this matrix we obtain the bare response and correlation functions

$`C_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}=C_{l}^{}{}_{t^{}t}{}^{q}=\overline{u_{qt}u_{qt^{}}}`$ (80)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{T}{q^2}}e^{q^2|tt^{}|}(c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2))`$
$`R_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}=\overline{{\displaystyle \frac{\delta u_{qt}}{\delta h_{qt^{}}}}}=\overline{u_{qt}i\widehat{u}_{qt^{}}}`$
$`=\theta (tt^{})e^{q^2(tt^{})}(c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)c(q^2/2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2))`$ (81)
where we have set the bare $`\eta =1`$. As we consider here the equilibrium dynamics of the system, the time translation invariance (TTI) and the fluctuation dissipation theorem (FDT) hold. These properties hold to all orders in perturbation theory and, as we will see has strong consequences on the structure of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(u,i\widehat{u})`$. This means for the dressed (i.e. exact) response and correlation functions:

$`𝒞_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}=𝒞_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}`$ (82)
$`_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}=_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}`$ (83)
$`_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}=\theta (tt^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}_t𝒞_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}`$ (84)
### V.2 Response function and dynamical exponent.

We will study the dynamics near the transition temperature $`T_c`$ (53), below which the lowest harmonic of the disordered pontential becomes relevant. Near $`T_c`$, we showed previously that the higher harmonics, although generated by perturbation theory, are irrelevant.

As we considered here static disorder, the average over the disorder generates an effective interaction $`S_{\text{int}}[u,i\widehat{u}]`$ in (72) which is non local in time, so we expect the friction coefficient to be renormalized by the disorder. We therefore construct the effective action to order one in $`\tau =(TT_c)/T_c`$, and extract the dynamical exponent $`z`$ from the response function. In the starting dynamical action (72) the interacting part is purely local in space, so to order one the interacting part of the associated effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(u,i\widehat{u})`$ will remain so. We therefore search a perturbative solution of the equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(u,i\widehat{u})`$ of the form (10):

$`𝒰_l(u,i\widehat{u})={\displaystyle _x}U_l(u_x,i\widehat{u}_x)`$ (85)
$`={\displaystyle _{xt}}i\widehat{u}_{xt}F_{l}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u_x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{xtt^{}}}i\widehat{u}_{xt}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u_x)i\widehat{u}_{xt^{}}`$ (86)
where $`F_{l}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u_x)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u_x)`$ are functionals only with respect to the time dependence, i.e. functions of the ”vector” $`u_x\{u_{xt}\}`$ at a given point $`x`$ in space. In addition these will acquire an explicit time dependence, indicated by their $`t`$ and $`t^{}`$ indices. One has the initial conditions

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l=0}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u)=2g_0\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2\mathrm{cos}(u_tu_t^{})`$
$`F_{l=0}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u)=0`$ (87)
The $`F_{l}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u)`$ term is indeed generated by perturbation theory and is related - in the case of equilibrium dynamics - to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u)`$ by a generalized FDT relation, namely a Ward Identity, which can be written to lowest order:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_{l}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u)}{\delta u_{xt^{}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}_t^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u)t>t^{}`$ (88)
where $`_t^{}`$ acts only on the explicit time dependence (i.e. not on $`u_t^{}`$). Notice finally that terms containing higher powers of the field $`i\widehat{u}`$, ie $`(i\widehat{u})^{p+2}`$ are of order $`\tau ^{p+1}`$. They correspond to higher cumulant of the disorder (i.e. higher number of replica terms in the statics). The exact RG equation to order one (14) then reads (see Appendix E)

$`_l\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u)={\displaystyle _{t_1t_1^{}}}k_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{(1)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u)`$ (89)
$`_lF_{l}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u)={\displaystyle _{t_1t_1^{}}}k_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{(1)}F_{l}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u){\displaystyle _{t_1>t_1^{}}}k_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{(2)}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt_1^{}}{}^{}(u)`$
with

$`k_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{(1)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{xt_1}}}_lC_{l}^{}{}_{t_1t_1^{}}{}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{xt_1^{}}}}`$
$`k_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{xt_1}}}_lR_{l}^{}{}_{t_1t_1^{}}{}^{x=0}`$ (90)
The solution of this coupled set of equations (89) together with (V.2) is given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}(u)=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2g_le^{C_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{x=0}}\mathrm{cos}(u_{xt}u_{xt^{}})`$ (91)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_{lt}(u)}{\delta u_{xt^{}}}}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2g_le^{C_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{x=0}}R_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{x=0}\mathrm{cos}(u_{xt}u_{xt^{}})t>t^{}`$
where we can check explicitly the previously mentioned generalized FDT relation (88). Finally, as we consider here static disorder, the flow of $`g_l`$ is given by the previous study, the fixed point value $`g^{}`$ being given by (57).

From $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l[u,i\widehat{u}]`$, we obtain the response function in the following way

$`_{ltt^{}}^q=u_{qt}i\widehat{u}_{qt^{}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{\delta i\widehat{u}_{qt_1}\delta u_{qt_1^{}}}}|_{u=i\widehat{u}=0}\right)_{q,t,t^{}}^1`$ (92)
We define

$`D_{ltt^{}}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt^{}}(u=0)`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta F_{l}^{}{}_{t}{}^{}(u)}{\delta u_{xt^{}}}}|_{u=0}`$ (93)
notice that in the case of equilibrium dynamics $`D_{ltt^{}}=D_{ltt^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}`$. One gets

$$\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_l}{\delta i\widehat{u}_{qt}\delta u_{qt^{}}}|_{u=i\widehat{u}=0}=\delta (tt^{})(q^2+_t)+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}$$
(94)
When considering equilibrium dynamics, the use of Fourier transform allows to compute this matrix element (92) in a simple way

$`_{l\omega }^q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2i\omega +\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }}}`$ (95)
where $`_{lt}^q=\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{i\omega t}_{l\omega }^q`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }`$ is the Fourier transform, of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}`$. In Appendix E we show that it has the following form (up to terms of order $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }=i\omega B_l(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}+\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}}))`$ (96)
$`B_l={\displaystyle \frac{g_le^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}}{2T_c}}`$ (97)
whith the following asymptotic behaviors

$`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )a_{\text{dyn}}\mathrm{ln}\nu \nu 1`$ (98)
$`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )\mathrm{ln}\nu \nu 1`$ (99)
where $`a_{\text{dyn}}`$ is a non universal constant. The large argument behavior of $`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}`$ (99) allows to take the large $`l`$ limit in (96) as the logarithmic divergence is cancelled, which gives

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}_{l\omega }^q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2i\omega +i\omega B^{}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}}`$ (100)
$`B^{}=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}B_l=e^{\gamma _E}\tau `$ (101)
where we have used (57) to compute $`B^{}`$ which is universal : the cut-off dependence encoded in $`e^{2_a\mathrm{ln}2a}`$ has disappeared. On the other hand we expect that the scaling function in Fourier should read:

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}_{l\omega }^q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2i\omega (\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2})^{2/z1}}}`$ (102)
from scaling. If the initial model possess STS then the coefficient of $`q^2`$ is fixed to unity. The $`q`$-independence of the self-energy is expected to hold only to the order in $`\tau `$ that we are working at, and it should be corrected by higher loops. Expansion of the denominator of (100) coincides with the expansion to order $`\tau `$ of the denominator of (102) and yields the universal value of the dynamical exponent $`z`$

$`z2=2B^{}=2e^{\gamma _E}\tau +O(\tau ^2)`$ (103)
in agreement with previous studies.

It is interesting in view of later applications to non-equilibrium dynamics, and a useful check, to compute this response function in the time domain. Indeed, writing simply the identity $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{l}^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{1}=𝕀`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^{(2)}`$ is the matrix of the second functional derivatives of the effective action with respect ot the fields $`u_{xt}`$ and $`i\widehat{u}_{xt}`$, we obtain a system of closed equations for the exact response and correlation functions $`_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{xx^{}}`$ and $`𝒞_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{xx^{}}`$ to order one (more generally, $`F_{lt}(u)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{}`$ can be bilocal in space)

$`_t_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{xx^{}}^2_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{xx^{}}+{\displaystyle _{t_i}^t}𝑑t_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt_1}_{l}^{}{}_{t_1t^{}}{}^{xx^{}}=\delta (tt^{})\delta (xx^{})`$ (104)
$`_t𝒞_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{xx^{}}^2𝒞_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{xx^{}}+{\displaystyle _{t_i}^t}𝑑t_1\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt_1}𝒞_{l}^{}{}_{t_1t^{}}{}^{xx^{}}=2\eta T_{l}^{}{}_{t^{}t}{}^{xx^{}}+{\displaystyle _{t_i}^t^{}}𝑑t_1D_{ltt_1}_{t^{}t_1}^{xx^{}}`$ (105)
We remind that we have chosen the Ito presription, which fixes the following initial condition for the response function

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}_{l}^{}{}_{t,tϵ}{}^{}=1`$
$`_{l}^{}{}_{t,t}{}^{}=0`$ (106)
Before using these equations to study non-equilibrium dynamics, we show how the equation for the response (Eq. 104) function allows to recover the dynamical exponent $`z`$. Using (V.2) together with (91) and TTI (which holds for equilibrium dynamics), the equation for the response function reads

$`(_t+q^2)_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}=`$ (107)
$`2g_l\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^t}𝑑t_1R_{ltt_1}^{x=0}e^{C_{ltt_1}^{x=0}}(_{l}^{}{}_{t_1t^{}}{}^{q}_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q})`$
The limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ is taken as explained in the Appendix E (248), and a way to solve this equation is simply to say that in the rhs, we may replace $`_{l}^{}{}_{t_1t^{}}{}^{q}`$, by its bare value, which is simply $`\theta (t_1t^{})e^{q^2(t_1t^{})}`$ as this term is already of order $`\tau `$.

One expects that the response function can be written as:

$`_{tt^{}}^q=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}_{l,tt^{}}^q=\stackrel{~}{q}^{z2}F_R^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{}))`$ (108)
where $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}=t\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{t}^{}=t^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$, with $`F_R^{\text{eq}}`$ a universal scaling function (up to an overall non universal scale) such that $`F_R^{\text{eq}}(v)v^{(2z)/z}`$ for $`v0`$. As a function it admits an expansion in powers of $`\tau `$, obtained as:

$`F_R^{\text{eq}}(v)=F_R^0(v)+\tau F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)+O(\tau ^2)`$ (109)
$`F_R^0(v)=e^v`$
$`F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)=e^{\gamma _E}((v1)Ei(v)e^v+e^v1)`$
$`v=\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{})`$
as shown in the appendix E. This is established by identifying the direct expansion of (108) in terms of the argument $`v^{}=\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{})`$:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=F_R^0(v^{})+(z2)\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}(F_R^0(v^{})+v^{}F_R^0^{}(v^{}))`$ (110)
$`+\tau F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v^{})+O(\tau ^2)`$
with the result of solving (107). Note that the term proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}`$ has precisely the expected $`v`$ dependence, a check of the calculation. Since there is an overall non-universal scale $`\stackrel{~}{q}\lambda \stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)`$ is defined up to a change in the constant $`\rho `$ defined in the Appendix E (262).

One can check explicitly that the scaling function in the time domain obtained by this second method coincides with the inverse Fourier transform of (102) to the lowest order in $`\tau `$. The asymptotic behavior of the scaling function in the time domain is:

$`F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)e^{\gamma _E}\mathrm{ln}(1/(e^{\gamma _E}v)),v0`$ (111)
$`F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)e^{\gamma _E}v^2,v\mathrm{}`$ (112)
the slow time decay $`1/t^{1+\frac{2}{z}}`$, for $`z>2`$, arises from the disorder. Notice that a similar power law tail for large $`\stackrel{~}{q}^z\stackrel{~}{t}`$ has already been obtained for the diluted Ising model kissner\_random\_mass .

Using the FDT we also obtain the equilibrium correlation function in the scaling regime as:

$`𝒞_{tt^{}}^q=T\stackrel{~}{q}^2F_C^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{}))`$ (113)
$`F_C^{\text{eq}}(v)={\displaystyle _v^+\mathrm{}}𝑑wF_R^{\text{eq}}(w)`$ (114)
We conclude this section on equilibrium dynamics by noticing a few interesting properties. The first one is an exact consequence of the scaling form (108) combined with the STS. Indeed, the STS imposes:

$`\underset{t\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{t_i}}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑t^{}_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}`$ (115)
Using the scaling property we showed previously, this symmetry (115) implies

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t\stackrel{~}{q}^{z2}F_R^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{~}{q}^zt)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uF_R^{\text{eq}}(u)=1`$ (116)
from which it follows that

$`_{tt^{}}^{x=0}={\displaystyle _q}\stackrel{~}{q}^{z2}F_R^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}))={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi z(tt^{})}}`$
$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{x=0}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi z}}\mathrm{ln}(tt^{})`$ (117)
where we have used FDT in the last line. Note that the unrescaled time $`t`$ appears in these formulae. Although the scaling form (108) is only valid for small $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ we believe that the behaviors (118) may actually be the exact leading ones in the large $`tt^{}`$ limit, their coefficients being fixed (non-perturbatively) by the STS. This would be interesting to check numerically.

The second property is a comparison with the so-called Porod’s law bray\_porods . If the form (102) were to hold to all orders, the scaling functions would decay at large arguments as $`F_R^{\text{eq}}(v)1/v^{1+\frac{2}{z}}`$ and $`F_C^{\text{eq}}(v)1/v^{\frac{2}{z}}`$. That yields

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^q{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(tt^{})^{2/z}q^4}}`$ (118)
as in the Porod’s law with $`d=2`$ and $`n=2`$ bray\_porods . Here this property holds to the order of our calculation $`O(\tau )`$.

## VI Non-equilibrium dynamics of the CO model

Applying standard scaling arguments, we expect $`_{tt^{}}^q`$ and $`𝒞_{tt^{}}^q`$ to be functions of the scaling variables $`\stackrel{~}{q}^z\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}^z\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t`$ and $`z`$ is the dynamical exponent. As is the case for pure systems at a critical point one can write from RG arguments janssen\_noneq\_rg  with little restriction:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\stackrel{~}{q}^{2+z+\eta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}\right)^\theta F_R(\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}),\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}})`$ (119)
$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=T\stackrel{~}{q}^{2+\eta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}\right)^\theta F_C(\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}),\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}})`$ (120)
where the exponent $`\theta `$ is defined by imposing the following behavior of the response scaling function $`F_R(v,u)`$ when $`u\mathrm{}`$ :

$`F_R(v,u)=F_{R,\mathrm{}}(v)+O(u^1)`$ (121)
This has been checked for pure systems janssen\_noneq\_rg ; godreche\_spherique\_fdr ; henkel\_noneq\_conforme ; calabrese\_on\_twoloops  and, partially for one case of a disordered system (only for the response function in kissner\_random\_mass  and for the Fourier mode $`q=0`$ for both functions in calabrese\_fdr\_randommass ). It was found in all the pure cases that one also has

$`F_C(v,u)={\displaystyle \frac{F_{C,\mathrm{}}(v)}{u}}+O(u^2)`$ (122)
These forms (121,122) yield a non trivial Fluctuation Dissipation Ratio (FDR) characterizing the violation of the Fluctuation Dissipation Theorem (FDT) cugliandolo\_fdr ; cugliandolo\_leshouches . It has been computed exactly for the spherical model in $`d>2`$ godreche\_spherique\_fdr , using dynamical RG methods for the pure $`O(N)`$ model at criticality up to two loops in an $`ϵ=4d`$ expansion calabrese\_on\_twoloops , and up to one loop for the critical diluted Ising model in a $`\sqrt{ϵ}`$ expansion calabrese\_fdr\_randommass .

Another standard definition for the autocorrelation exponent $`\lambda _C`$ fisher\_huse\_noneq ; bray\_lambda ; huse\_lambda  and for the autoresponse exponent $`\lambda _R`$ picone\_autoresponse  is:

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\stackrel{~}{t}^{\frac{d\lambda _C}{z}}\varphi _C(\stackrel{~}{q}^z\stackrel{~}{t})`$ (123)
$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\stackrel{~}{t}^{\frac{d\lambda _R}{z}}\varphi _R(\stackrel{~}{q}^z\stackrel{~}{t})`$ (124)
in the limit $`\stackrel{~}{t}\mathrm{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}0`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ fixed and $`\stackrel{~}{q}^z\stackrel{~}{t}`$ fixed, with $`\varphi _{R,C}(0)=Cst`$. Assuming the behaviors (121,122) one finds the connection:

$`(d\lambda _C)z^1=\theta 1+(2\eta )z^1`$ (125)
$`\lambda _R=\lambda _C`$
$`\varphi _C(v)=Tv^{\frac{\eta 2}{z}}F_{C,\mathrm{}}(v)(t^{})^{1\theta }`$
$`\varphi _R(v)=v^{\frac{\eta 2+z}{z}}F_{R,\mathrm{}}(v)(t^{})^\theta `$
which seems to hold for pure models, together with the inequality $`d/2\lambda _C=\lambda _R`$ fisher\_huse\_noneq ; yeung\_bound\_lambda .

For the nonequilibrium dynamics of the CO model, we obtain similar scalings (119, 120), ($`\eta =0`$ in this case because of STS) but with a different asymptotic behavior at large $`u`$ of the scaling function $`F_C(v,u)`$. As we will see, this has strong consequences on the FDR. Note that although $`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ is the full correlation function, to this order in the $`\tau `$ expansion it coincides with the connected one (which is the correct one to consider e.g. to obey FDT in the equilibrium regime), the difference between the two being of order $`g^2=O(\tau ^2)`$.

### VI.1 General framework

We want to study the dynamics of the system described by (71) which, at the initial time $`t_i=0`$, is in a non equilibrium configuration $`u_{xt_i}=u_x^0`$, whose statistical weight is given by $`e^{H_0[u^0]}`$ (where $`H_0[u_0]H_{CO}[u_0]`$). The general framework to incorporate this feature in the MSR formalism has been developped in janssen\_noneq\_rg , and it amounts to describe the system in terms of the generating functional $`S[u,i\widehat{u}]S[u,i\widehat{u}]+H_0[u_x^0]`$. If the system is prepared in a high temperature state, with short range correlations $`u_x^0u_x^{}^0=m_0^2\delta ^d(xx^{})`$, the corresponding $`H_0[u^0]`$ is given by

$`H_0[u^0]={\displaystyle \frac{m_0^2}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(u_x^0)^2`$ (126)
any addition of anharmonic terms in $`H_0[u^0]`$ is irrelevant as long $`m_0^20`$. Moreover by power counting one has that $`m_0^2`$ is irrelevant janssen\_noneq\_rg , so that to study the leading scaling behavior it is sufficient to assume $`m_0^2=0`$, i.e. $`u_x^0=0`$. The effect of this nonequilibrium initial condition is then completely encoded in the lower bound $`t_i=0`$ on the time integrals in the MSR functional (72). The running bare response and correlation functions are given by janssen\_noneq\_rg :

$`R_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}=\theta (tt^{})e^{q^2(tt^{})}\left(c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}})c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}})\right)`$ (127)
$`C_{l}^{}{}_{tt^{}}{}^{q}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{q^2}}\left(e^{q^2|tt^{}|}e^{q^2(t+t^{})}\right)\left(c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}})c({\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}})\right)`$
### VI.2 Nonequilibrium response function

In order to compute the response function, we solve perturbatively the equation for $`_{tt^{}}^q`$ (104) using the trick explained above, i.e. replacing the exact $`_{tt^{}}^q`$ in the rhs of (104) by its bare value. Doing this, we obtain a perturbative expansion of the exponents $`z`$ (already obtained previously (103)), $`\theta `$ and of the scaling function $`F_R(v,u)`$ in the same spirit as (109). Indeed, as shown in Appendix F, one has the scaling (119), in terms of the scaling variables $`v=\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})`$ and $`u=\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ with

$`F_R(v,u)=F_R^0(v)+\tau F_R^1(v,u)`$ (128)
$`F_R^1(v,u)=F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)+F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)`$
$`\theta =e^{\gamma _E}\tau +O(\tau ^2)`$
which is established by comparison with the direct perturbative expansion of (119) in powers of $`\tau `$:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=F_R^0(v^{})+(z2)\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}(F_R^0(v^{})+v^{}F_R^0^{}(v^{}))`$
$`+\theta \mathrm{ln}uF_R^0(v^{})+\tau F_R^1(v^{},u)+O(\tau ^2)`$ (129)
with $`v^{}=\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})`$ and $`F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)`$ is given by (109) and $`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)`$ given in (278) has a complicated expression left in the Appendix (F.2). However its asymptotic behaviors, which we now focus on have remarkably simple forms. First, in order to compare with the prediction for pure critical systems one is interested in the limit of large $`u`$, keeping $`v`$ fixed. This defines $`F_{R,\mathrm{}}(v)`$ (121) which, we find to be:

$`F_{R,\mathrm{}}(v)=e^v+e^{\gamma _E}\tau \{\sqrt{\pi v}\mathrm{Erf}\sqrt{v}`$
$`e^v((1v)\mathrm{ln}(4ve^{\gamma _E})`$
$`2v(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})_2F_2(\{1,1\},\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},2\},v))\}+O(\tau ^2)`$ (130)
where $`\mathrm{Erf}(z)`$ is the error function and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(\{1,1\},\{\frac{3}{2},2\},z)`$ is a generalized hypergeometric series gradstein ; wolfram ; bateman . This shows that the response function has a scaling behavior as predicted for pure systems at a critical point (121). The small $`v`$ behavior of $`F_{R,\mathrm{}}(v)1e^{\gamma _E}\tau \mathrm{ln}v`$ shows that $`\varphi _R(v)`$ (125) has a good limit when $`v0`$, $`\varphi _R(0)=Cst`$, and this gives the autocorrelation exponent $`\lambda _R`$ (124):

$`\lambda _R=2+O(\tau ^2)`$ (131)
It is also interesting to analyze the asymptotic behavior in the limit of large $`v`$ (and in particular $`vu`$ ), keeping $`u`$ fixed. This limit is relevant e.g. to study the behavior at fixed $`q`$, large $`t,t^{}`$ with $`u=\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ fixed. It is obtained from (278) as explained in the Appendix F. The behavior of the response function in this limit is then given by

$`\underset{v\mathrm{},u\text{fixed}}{lim}F_R(v,u)e^v+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{v^2}}P_R(u)+O(\tau v^3,\tau ^2)`$
$`P_R(u)=e^{\gamma _E}{\displaystyle \frac{u+1}{2\sqrt{u}}}`$ (132)
Notice that in the limit $`u1`$ we recover the result of the equilibrium dynamics (112). This is more general as one can check from (F.2) that $`F_R^{\text{noneq}}(v,u)=O((u1)^2)`$ as $`u1`$. Finally, one must keep in mind that the limits $`v\mathrm{}`$ and $`u\mathrm{}`$ do not commute, indeed one expects that a scaling function of $`v/uq^zt^{}`$ interpolates between these limits, left for future investigation.

Another interesting behavior is the limit of vanishing momentum $`\stackrel{~}{q}=0`$, the so called diffusion mode. Although well defined, this limit is a bit peculiar due to the prefactor $`\stackrel{~}{q}^{z2}`$ in the scaling function (119). However, the function $`F_R(v,u)`$ behaves when $`v0`$ in such a way to cancel this divergence as in (111) and leads to well a defined response function $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}`$ which has the scaling form

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})^{(z2)/z}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}\right)^\theta F_R^{\text{diff}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}\right)`$ (133)
$`F_R^{\text{diff}}(u)=F_R^{\text{diff}0}(u)+\tau F_R^{\text{diff}1}(u)`$
$`F_R^{\text{diff}0}(u)=1`$
$`F_R^{\text{diff}1}(u)=2e^{\gamma _E}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{u}}{2\sqrt{u}}}\right)`$
which is identified with the perturbative expansion of $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}`$ straighforwardly obtained from the general expression (F.2).

### VI.3 Nonequilibrium correlation function.

To compute the correlation function, instead of solving the equation for $`𝒞_{ltt^{}}^q`$ (105), we obtain it using the following formal solution for $`\stackrel{~}{t}>\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒞_{l\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (134)
$`=2T{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}𝑑t_1_{\stackrel{~}{t}t_1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}t_1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}+{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}𝑑t_2_{\stackrel{~}{t}t_1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{t_1t_2}_{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}t_2}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$
where $`D_{t_1t_2}=lim_l\mathrm{}D_{lt_1t_2}`$ is defined in (V.2) and explicitly given in (266), that we expand perturbatively using the expression we obtained for $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (129). In the Appendix, we show that $`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ has the following scaling form (120) with

$`F_C(v,u)=F_C^0(v,u)+\tau F_C^1(v,u)`$ (135)
$`F_C^0(v,u)=e^ve^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}`$
and $`F_C^1(v,u)`$ given in Appendix. Again, this is established by identifying the direct perturbative exansion of (120):

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}(F_C^0(v^{},u)+(z2)\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{q})v^{}{\displaystyle \frac{F_C^0(v^{},u)}{v^{}}}`$
$`+\theta \mathrm{ln}uF_C^0(v^{},u)+\tau F_C^1(v^{},u))`$ (136)
with $`v^{}=\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{})`$, which is similar to the scaling form expected for pure systems at a critical point (120). However, the large $`u`$ behavior is different, indeed one has in the large $`u`$ limit, keeping $`v`$ fixed

$`\underset{u\mathrm{}}{lim}F_C(v,u){\displaystyle \frac{2e^vv}{u}}+\tau {\displaystyle \frac{F_{C,\mathrm{}}^1(v)}{\sqrt{u}}}+O(u^2,\tau u^1,\tau ^2)`$
$`F_{C,\mathrm{}}^1(v)=e^{\gamma _E}e^v\sqrt{\pi v}\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{v}`$ (137)
which decays more slowly than the predicted scaling for pure system at a critical point (122). Besides, using (285) $`F_{C,\mathrm{}}^1(v)v+O(v^2)`$, $`\varphi _C(0)=Cst`$ (125), this defines the autocorrelation exponent $`\lambda _C`$:

$`\lambda _C=d{\displaystyle \frac{z}{2}}+O(\tau ^2)=1e^{\gamma _E}\tau +O(\tau ^2)`$ (138)
where we have used the explicit expressions of the exponents $`z`$ (103), $`\theta `$ (128) and the relation $`(d\lambda _c)z^1=\theta 1/2+(2\eta )z^1`$ arising from $`1/\sqrt{u}`$ decay of $`F_C^1(v,u)`$ (VI.3). Note first that $`\lambda _C`$ is different from its trivial value $`\lambda _Cd`$. Besides we note that $`\lambda _C\lambda _R`$ and finally that it violates the bound $`\lambda _C<d/2`$ predicted for pure systems.

For the correlation function it is also instructive to look at the asymptotic behavior $`v1`$, $`u`$ fixed. As detailed in the Appendix F one has

$`\underset{v\mathrm{}}{lim}F_C(v,u)F_C^0(v,u)+{\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{v}}P_C(u)+O(\tau v^2,\tau ^2)`$
$`P_C(u)=P_R(u)`$ (139)
Finally we also study the correlation function in the limit of vanishing momentum $`\stackrel{~}{q}=0`$. As mentionned previously for the response function this limit is a bit peculiar due to the $`q^2`$ prefactor in (120). The small $`v`$ behavior of $`F_C(v,u)`$ leads to the scaling form (up to a non universal scale)

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}=2\stackrel{~}{t^{}}T{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})^{(z2)/z}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}\right)^\theta F_C^{\text{diff}}(u)`$ (140)
$`F_C^{\text{diff}}(u)=F_C^{\text{diff}0}(u)+\tau F_C^{\text{diff}1}(u)`$
$`F_C^{\text{diff}0}(u)=1`$
$`F_C^{\text{diff}1}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}(4\sqrt{u}+(u+1)\mathrm{ln}(u1)`$
$`2(u1)\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{u})2\mathrm{ln}u+68\mathrm{ln}4)`$
with the asymptotic behaviors

$`F_C^{\text{diff}}(u)1+\tau e^{\gamma _E}\mathrm{ln}(u1)u1^+`$ (141)
$`F_C^{\text{diff}}(u)1+\tau e^{\gamma _E}\sqrt{u}u1`$
These behaviors are such that the singularity as $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{}0`$ cancels and one finds that the diffusion of the zero mode become anomalous at large time:

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}A\stackrel{~}{t^{}}^{2/z}`$ (142)
$`A=2T_c+O(\tau )`$
this formula being valid for $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$, the random walk result being recovered when $`z=2`$.

### VI.4 Fluctuation Dissipation Ratio.

We now give the results for The Fluctuation Dissipation Ratio (FDR) $`X_{tt^{}}^q`$ defined by cugliandolo\_fdr

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{X_{tt^{}}^q}}={\displaystyle \frac{_t^{}𝒞_{tt^{}}^q}{_{tt^{}}^q}}`$ (143)
Starting from the scaling laws that we established above, we can compute the FDR $`X_{tt^{}}^qX_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ as a function of the scaling variables $`\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$. As we saw previously, both the exponent $`z`$ and the scaling function associated with the FDR will have an expansion in powers of $`\tau `$, i.e.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{X_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}}}=F_X(\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}),{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}})`$ (144)
$`F_X(v,u)=F_X^0(v,u)+\tau F_X^1(v,u)+O(\tau ^2)`$
the expansion of $`z`$ to order $`\tau `$ being given by (103). $`F_X^0(v,u)`$ corresponds to the Gaussian model and from the perturbative expansions that we obtained for $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (129) and $`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (VI.3) one can identify (perturbatively) this scaling form, with

$`F_X^0(v,u)=1+e^{2\frac{v}{u1}}`$ (145)
$`F_X^1(v,u)={\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{u1}{v}}(1e^{2\frac{v}{u1}})e^vF_R^1(1+e^{2\frac{v}{u1}})`$
$`e^v({\displaystyle \frac{F_C^1(v,u)}{v}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u(u1)}{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{F_C^1(v,u)}{u}}))`$
Inserting the formulae for $`F_R^1`$ and $`F_C^1`$ obtained in the Appendix yields the general result for $`F_X`$ as a non trivial function of the two variables $`u,v`$. Here we only give the behaviors of this scaling function in the different asymptotic limits studied previously. First, we note that this formula gives back the FDT result $`F_X=1`$ for $`u=1`$.

Second, focusing on the limit $`u1`$, keeping $`v`$ fixed one has

$`F_X(v,u)=1+e^{2\frac{v}{u1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}\tau \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}}\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{v}`$
$`+O(\tau u^0,\tau ^2)`$ (146)
Thus in this regime $`X`$ decreases below its FDT value $`X_{FDT}=1`$. Looking at this result one is tempted to conclude that $`X_{tt^{}}^q`$ vanishes as $`t/t^{}\mathrm{}`$ when $`q^z(tt^{})`$ is kept fixed. In particular for $`q=0`$ (see below the direct calculation in this case) one finds the analogous quantity $`X_{\mathrm{}}^{q=0}`$ computed in calabrese\_on\_twoloops ; calabrese\_fdr\_randommass  for several models. However one must keep in mind that (VI.4) is perturbative in $`\tau `$ and the divergence of the coefficient of $`\tau `$ could also be a sign of a non analyticity in $`\tau `$ of the $`u=\mathrm{}`$ result. Elucidation of this point is left for future study.

In the other limit that we studied previously, corresponding to $`v1`$, keeping $`u`$ fixed, we obtain straightforwardly the following behavior

$`F_X(v,u)=1+e^{2\frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}\tau e^v}{2v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(u1)^2}{2\sqrt{u}}}`$
$`+O(\tau e^vv^3,\tau ^2)`$ (147)
This limit is relevant to study fixed $`q`$. It shows that there is still aging behavior in a given non zero mode, and appears to contradict some claims calabrese\_on\_twoloops  that only the zero mode (diffusion) exhibits interesting aging behavior. Note also that in this regime one has $`X>X_{FDT}`$, a feature found in other disordered models rfim .

Finally in the limit of vanishing momentum $`\stackrel{~}{q}=0`$, the FDR is a function of the scaling variable $`\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ whose perturbative expansion is given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{X_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}}}=F_X^{\text{diff}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}\right)`$ (148)
$`F_X^{\text{diff}}(u)=F_X^{\text{diff}0}(u)+\tau F_X^{\text{diff}1}(u)+O(\tau ^2)`$ (149)
$`F_X^{\text{diff}0}(u)=2`$
$`F_X^{\text{diff}1}(u)=2F_C^{\text{diff}1}(u)2u{\displaystyle \frac{dF_C^{\text{diff}1}(u)}{du}}2F_R^{\text{diff}1}(u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2(z2)}{z\tau (u1)}}2{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{\tau }}`$
Using the results of previous Sections we find:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{X_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}}}=2+\tau e^{\gamma _E}(\sqrt{u}+\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{u}1}{\sqrt{u}+1}})+\sigma )`$ (150)
where $`\sigma `$ is a numerical constant. This constant depends on additive constants to respectively $`F_R^1`$ and $`F_C^1`$, each of them being nonuniversal as discussed above (see Appendix). However, a distinct possibility is that $`F_X^{\text{diff}}(u)`$ is universal (i.e. that the non universal parts cancel). Checking this can be done with the present method, and is left for future study. The value obtained here, $`\sigma =512\mathrm{ln}2`$, may only be indicative since we did not keep track of all additive constants. In particular, in the scaling regime $`\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}1`$, one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{X_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}}}2+\tau e^{\gamma _E}\sqrt{u}+O(\tau u^0,\tau ^2)`$ (151)
Notice that taking the limit $`v0`$ (using (285)) on the asymptotic expression (VI.4) where we have taken the limit $`u1`$ before $`v`$ small one recovers the same result (151).

One way to understand the result (150), i.e. the divergence of $`X_{tt^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}`$ when $`t^{}t`$ is to note that the same divergence occurs for a simple diffusion process with the same close times asymptotic behaviors:

$`𝒞_{tt^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2/z}`$ (152)
$`_{tt^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}(tt^{})^{(2z)/z}`$ (153)
which yields straigforwardly $`X_{tt^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}A(u1)^{(2z)/z}`$ as $`u1`$. Note however that to obtain the correct amplitude $`A`$ one needs to take into account further corrections to $`𝒞_{tt^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}`$, specifically we note that one can rewrite (140) as:

$`𝒞_{tt^{}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}=t_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2/z}𝒜(u)`$ (154)
and that the detailed asymptotics of $`𝒜(u)`$ near $`u=1`$ determines the amplitude of the divergence.

## VII conclusion

In this paper we have developped a novel EMRG method to perform first principle perturbative calculations based on exact RG. Contrarily to previous works it is based on a multilocal expansion of the effective action functional. It allows to perform conveniently calculations with an arbitrary cutoff function in a fully controlled way and check explicitly the universality of the observables.

We have tested the method on the standard $`O(N)`$ model. We have shown that the exponent $`\eta `$ to order $`O(ϵ^2)`$ can be simply recovered within the exact RG multilocal expansion. This is interesting since previous approaches relied on approximations such as polynomial and derivative expansions, which are not needed here. We have also obtained several two-point scaling functions and explicitly checked universality. Finally, we explained how the method compares with more standard field theoretical approaches. In a sense the present method directly yields the renormalized theory.

We have applied the EMRG method to study the glass phase of the two dimensional random Sine-Gordon model (Cardy-Ostlund) near the glass transition temperature. We have first recovered known results for the statics and for the equilibrium dynamical exponent $`z`$ which we showed to be universal. The method of derivation however is quite different from previous ones, since it yields directly the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_l(\omega )`$ as a scaling function of $`\omega /\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ is the infrared cutoff. We have given for the first time the scaling functions associated to finite momentum equilibrium response and correlation.

Next we studied the out of equilibrium dynamics of the Cardy-Ostlund model. We obtained the two time response and correlations at finite momentum. These were found to take a scaling form and we computed analytically the corresponding scaling functions which depend on two arguments $`v=\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})`$ and $`u=\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$. We showed that they exhibit aging behavior characterized by a non trivial fluctuation dissipation ratio $`X`$, itself a universal function of $`u,v`$ that we obtained. We also obtained the off equilibrium exponents $`\theta `$ and $`\lambda `$. Interestingly we found that, at variance with pure systems, one must introduce two distinct exponents $`\lambda _R`$ and $`\lambda _C`$ for response and correlation respectively. Our study raises the question of whether this could be a more general property of glassy dynamics in disordered systems.

Our method is promising for further RG studies of disordered systems, as it allows to attack the problem with few assumptions. Other situations where it can be applied are elastic manifolds in random media, where it can be used to put the so-called Functional RG on a more solid basis pld ; pldlb . Concerning the results of the present paper, a numerical simulation of the Cardy Ostlund glass phase can be performed gsnumsim  and should provide an interesting test of the predictions of our RG calculation. In particular, some points require further examination, e.g. the asymptotic value $`X_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the FDR. This would be interesting especially in the light of the present activity on FDR in mean field models, and interpretations in terms of effective temperatures. Indeed developing real space, RG type methods beyond mean field remains a challenge in the theory of glasses.

## Appendix A exact RG equation for the effective action

Here we present a simple derivation of the exact RG equation satisfied by the effective action, denoted here $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )`$ (and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )`$ in the text), for the theory of action given in (1), when the propagator $`G`$ is varied, for a fixed interacting functional $`𝒱(\varphi )`$. One first introduces the generating functional:

$`Z_G(j)={\displaystyle D\varphi e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi :G^1:\varphi 𝒱(\varphi )+j:\varphi }}`$ (155)
i.e. the partition function in presence of a set of sources denoted $`jj_x^i`$. For any variation $`G`$ of $`G`$, its variation $`Z_G(j)`$ satisfies:

$`Z_G(j)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}TrG^1{\displaystyle D\varphi \varphi \varphi e^{\frac{1}{2}\varphi :G^1:\varphi +𝒱(\varphi )+j:\varphi }}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}TrG^1{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2Z_G(j)}{\delta j\delta j}}`$ (156)
where $`G^1=G^1GG^1`$ and $`Tr`$ denotes a trace over all spatial coordinates and indices $`x,i`$. Next, one introduces the generating functional $`W_G(j)=\mathrm{ln}Z_G(j)`$ of connected correlations, which varies as:

$$W_G(j)=\frac{1}{2}TrG^1(\frac{\delta ^2W_G(j)}{\delta j\delta j}+\frac{\delta W_G(j)}{\delta j}\frac{\delta W_G(j)}{\delta j})$$
(157)
an exact RG equation for this quantity. From there it is simple to obtain the RG equation obeyed by its Legendre transform $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )=\text{min}_j(\varphi :jW_G(j))`$. We will assume that no problem arise from the convexity condition and that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )`$ can be obtained using only the saddle point conditions:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_G}{\delta j}}(j_G(\varphi ))=\varphi `$ (158)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi }}=j_G(\varphi )`$ (159)
For the variation of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )=\varphi :j_G(\varphi )W_G(j_G(\varphi ))`$, this yields:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )=W_G(j_G(\varphi ))`$ (160)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}TrG^1({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2W_G}{\delta j\delta j}}(j_G(\varphi ))+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_G}{\delta j}}(j_G(\varphi )){\displaystyle \frac{\delta W_G}{\delta j}}(j_G(\varphi )))`$
since the term proportional to $`_Gj_G`$ cancels as usual from the saddle point conditions (159). Using (159) once more, as well as the standard relation $`\frac{\delta W_G}{\delta j\delta j}(j_G(\varphi ))=[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_G}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }]^1`$, gives the equation (5) of the text.

Writing then

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\varphi :G^1:\varphi +𝒰_G(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\mathrm{ln}G`$ (161)
this is equivalent to the equation for $`𝒰_G`$:

$`𝒰_G(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}TrG:(G^1G^1(1+G:{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒰_G}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }})^1)`$ (162)
or its equivalent form given in the text.

Now that we have an exact equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G(\varphi )`$, we can relate the effective action in theories with the same $`𝒱(\varphi )`$ but different $`G`$. All we need to fully determine the effective action is an initial condition. It is provided by the action itself. Indeed one has the following perturbative loop expansion:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\mathrm{ln}G+𝒮(\varphi )+{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^k(\varphi )`$ (163)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^k(\varphi )`$ is the sum of all $`k`$ loop 1PI graphs using $`𝒱(\varphi )`$ as interaction and $`G`$ as propagator. Thus if the initial condition for the propagator $`G_{l=0}`$ is such that all $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^k(\varphi )`$ graphs vanish when computed with $`G_{l=0}`$, then one can choose the initial condition as $`𝒰_{l=0}(\varphi )=𝒱(\varphi )`$. This is the case for the choice (6,8) made in the text (similarly the initial condition for $`W_G(j)`$ in (157) is the Legendre transform of the initial action $`𝒮(\varphi )`$).

Finally let us note that the RG equation can also be written as:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d𝒰_G(\varphi )}{dG}}={\displaystyle \frac{}{G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tr\mathrm{ln}(1+G:{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒰_G(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }})`$ (164)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒰_G(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }}:(1+G:{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2𝒰_G(\varphi )}{\delta \varphi \delta \varphi }})^1`$ (165)
where the derivative $`\frac{}{G}`$ in the r.h.s. of the first equation is restricted to the explicit $`G`$ dependence (i.e. not the one implicit in $`𝒰_G(\varphi )`$).

## Appendix B multilocal expansion to $`O(U^2)`$

To $`O(U^2)`$ one needs only $`U`$ and $`VO(U^2)`$ in the expansion (10) of $`\stackrel{~}{U}`$. The functional derivative reads:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \stackrel{~}{U}}{\delta \varphi _x^i\delta \varphi _y^j}}=\delta _{xy}[_i_jU(\varphi _x)+{\displaystyle _z}(_i^1_j^1V(\varphi _x,\varphi _z,xz)`$
$`+_i^2_j^2V(\varphi _z,\varphi _x,zx)]+2^1_i^2_jV(\varphi _x,\varphi _y,xy)+O(W)`$
using parity $`V(\varphi ,\psi ,x)=V(\varphi ,\psi ,x)`$. Inserting in (9) and keeping only terms up to order $`O(U^2)`$ one finds the resulting RG equation:

$`_lU_l(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{ij}^{x=0}_i_jU_l(\varphi )+{\displaystyle _x}G_{ij}^x_i^1_j^2V_l(\varphi ,\varphi ,x){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}G_{ij}^x_j_kU_l(\varphi )(G_l^x)_{km}_m_iU_l(\varphi )`$ (167)
$`_lV_l(\varphi ,\psi ,x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{ij}^x_j_kU_l(\varphi )(G_l^x)_{km}_m_iU_l(\psi )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{ij}^{x=0}(_i^1_j^1+_i^2_j^2)V_l(\varphi ,\psi ,x)+_i^1_j^2(G_{ij}^xV_l(\varphi ,\psi ,x)`$
$`\delta (x){\displaystyle _y}G_{ij}^yV_l(\varphi ,\psi ,y))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta (x){\displaystyle }_yG^y_{ij}_j_kU_l(\varphi )(G_l^y)_{km}_m_iU_l(\psi )`$ (168)
where the local projection $`\overline{P}_1`$ operator has been applied to obtain the first equation, and the operator $`1P_1`$ to obtain the second. This is illustrated in Fig. 2 (dropping all terms of order $`O(U^3)`$ and higher). Note that $`_xV(\varphi ,\psi ,x)=0`$. The differential equation for the bilocal part $`V_l`$ is linear, a general property which allows to solve all higher multilocal components (here $`V_l`$) as a function of the local part $`U_l`$ only. The equation for $`V_l`$ can be integrated in the forms (12), (13) given in the text. The method is similar to chauvepld  to which we refer for further details. Inserting this solution in the equation for $`U_l`$ one obtains (14) in the text. We have assumed that no bilocal term exists in the original action. Near the fixed point form at large $`l`$ these assumptions are not strictly necessary, a statement which can be checked using the present method.

It can be useful, in particular for the Cardy Ostlund model that we study in the text, to introduce a Fourier representation in the fields:

$`U_l^K={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi e^{iK.\varphi }U_l(\varphi )}`$
$`V_l^{KPx}={\displaystyle 𝑑\varphi 𝑑\psi e^{iK.\varphi iP.\psi }V_l(\varphi ,\psi ,x)}`$ (169)
Using this representation, we obtain the RG equations (12-14) in Fourier space

$`V_l^{KPx}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(F_l^{KPx}\delta (x){\displaystyle _y}F_l^{KPy})`$ (170)
$`F_l^{KPx}={\displaystyle _0^l}dl^{}(K.G_l^{}^x.P)(K.G_l^{}^x.P)e^{\frac{1}{2}K.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.K+\frac{1}{2}P.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.P+K.G_{l^{}l}^x.P}U_l^{}^KU_l^{}^P`$
$`_lU_l^K={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}K.G^{x=0}.KU_l^K{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{P,Q,P+Q=K}}{\displaystyle _x}(P.G^x.Q)(P.G_l^x.Q)U_l^PU_l^Q`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{P,Q,P+Q=K}}{\displaystyle _x}P.(G_l^xG_l^0).Q{\displaystyle _0^l}dl^{}(P.G_l^{}^x.Q)(P.G_l^{}^x.Q)e^{\frac{1}{2}P.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.P+\frac{1}{2}Q.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}.Q+P.G_{l^{}l}^x.Q}U_l^{}^PU_l^{}^Q`$ (171)
where $`_{P,Q,P+Q=K}\frac{d^NPd^NQ}{(2\pi )^N}\delta (KPQ)`$ where $`N`$ is the number of components of $`\varphi `$. In the text we have used $`\widehat{V}_l^{KPx}`$ to distinguish the Fourier series coefficients from the Fourier transform.

## Appendix C Detailed calculations for the $`O(N)`$ model

### C.1 $`\beta `$-function

Let us insert (18) into the ERG equation (14), keeping only $`g_0`$, $`g_2`$ and $`g_4`$ for now, and first focus on the first line in (14) which reads:

$`_l[g_{0,l}+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}}{2!}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}}{4!}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^ϵ(\varphi ^2)^2]=`$ (172)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _q}G_l^q_i_iU_l(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _q}G_l^qG_l^q(_i_jU_l(\varphi ))^2`$
with implicit sums on repeated indices. Using that:

$`_i_jU_l(\varphi )=g_{2,l}\delta _{ij}+{\displaystyle \frac{g_{4,l}}{3!}}(\delta _{ij}\varphi ^2+2\varphi ^i\varphi ^j)`$ (173)
which yields:

$`_i_iU_l=Ng_{2,l}+{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3!}}g_{4,l}\varphi ^2`$
$`_i^1_j^1U_l(\varphi _1)_i^2_j^2U_l(\varphi _2)=Ng_{2,l}^2`$ (174)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3!}}g_{2,l}g_{4,l}(\varphi _1^2+\varphi _2^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(3!)^2}}g_{4,l}^2((N+4)\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2+4(\varphi _1\varphi _2)^2)`$
Setting $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2`$ in (174) and identifying the coefficients of $`\varphi ^2`$ and $`(\varphi ^2)^2`$, one then easily obtains all terms in (21,20) apart from the last one, with the scaled integrals defined in (22).

Inserting now (18) into the second line of the ERG equation (14) one obtains only a correction to $`g_2`$ from the term with the lowest number of derivatives (six). Noting that:

$`_i_j_kU_l(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{g_{4,l}}{3}}(\delta _{ij}\varphi ^k+\delta _{ik}\varphi ^j+\delta _{jk}\varphi ^i)`$ (175)
one finds:

$`({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_i^1_i^2)^3U_l(\varphi _1)U_l(\varphi _2)={\displaystyle \frac{g_{4,l}^2}{3}}(N+2)\varphi _1\varphi _2`$ (176)
yielding the last term in (21)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}^2`$ (177)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2{\displaystyle _x}(_lG_l^x_lG_l^{x=0})_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^x\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$ (178)
This term does not modify the fixed point value $`\stackrel{~}{g}_2^{}`$ to order $`ϵ`$, provided it remains finite in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. A way to compute it is to make an integration by part to treat the integral over $`l^{}`$:

$`{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^x\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$ (179)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(G_l^x)^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{2ϵ}{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}(G_l^{}^x)^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^ϵ_l^{}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^ϵ)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(G_l^x)^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2+O(ϵ\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2,\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^3)`$
as from Eq. (20) $`_l^{}(\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^ϵ)`$ is of order $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}^2`$ and where we have used $`G_{l=0}^x=0^+`$. The terms we dropped are of order $`ϵ^3`$ in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$. Finally, in the large $`l`$ limit we are left with

$$_0^l𝑑l^{}\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}^2=\frac{\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2_x(_lG_l^x_lG_l^{x=0})(G_l^x)^2+O(ϵ^3)$$
(180)
which is already of order $`ϵ^2`$, so that the integral over $`x`$ can be performed in $`d=4`$ exactly. Using the decomposition of the cutoff (17), we compute the following integrals exactly in $`d=4`$

$`G_l^x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^2}}(e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/2a})`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2_lG_l^x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a}`$ (181)
Eq. (177) can finally be written as an integral over the rescaled variable $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l^{}}^2\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}}{\displaystyle _a}(e^{\stackrel{~}{x}^2/2a}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{a\stackrel{~}{x}^4}}`$
$`\left({\displaystyle _a}e^{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0/\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)^2\stackrel{~}{x}^2/(2a)}e^{\stackrel{~}{x}^2/2a}\right)^2`$ (182)
In the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$, this integral is well defined. Indeed, there is no UV divergence (due to the term $`(e^{\stackrel{~}{x}^2/2a}1)`$ which behaves as $`\stackrel{~}{x}^2`$) nor IR divergence due to the term $`e^{\stackrel{~}{x}^2/a}`$.

By the same calculation one obtains the flow of the free energy:

$`_lg_{0,l}={\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^d(\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^d{\displaystyle _0^l}\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(3)}g_{4,l^{}}^2`$ (183)
with:

$`\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(3)}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^d{\displaystyle _x}(_lG_l^x_lG_l^{x=0})_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^xG_{l^{}l}^x\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$
We finally obtain the flow for $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{6,l}`$ in (18) with the same kind of manipulations, and using furthermore

$`_i_j((\varphi ^2)^3)=6\delta _{ij}(\varphi ^2)^2+24\varphi ^i\varphi ^j\varphi ^2`$ (184)
$`_i_j_k((\varphi ^2)^3)=24\varphi ^2(\delta _{ij}\varphi ^k+\delta _{ik}\varphi ^j+\delta _{jk}\varphi ^i)+48\varphi ^i\varphi ^j\varphi ^k`$
one gets

$`_l\stackrel{~}{g}_{6,l}=(2ϵ2)\stackrel{~}{g}_{6,l}(N+14)\stackrel{~}{I}_l^{(1)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}\stackrel{~}{g}_{6,l}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{5}}(3N+16){\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}\stackrel{~}{I}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{6,l^{}}^2+O(\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^3)`$ (185)
which shows that $`\stackrel{~}{g}_6^{}ϵ^3`$. Similarly there is a term proportional to $`\stackrel{~}{I}^{(0)}\stackrel{~}{g}_{6,l}`$ in the flow equation of $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}`$ which affect the fixed point value $`\stackrel{~}{g}_4^{}`$ only to next order in $`ϵ`$.

### C.2 Computation of the exponent $`\eta `$.

The quadratic term in (29) is obtained by inserting (18) in (13) and expanding the exponential in (13) to order one. One gets, using (176)

$`F_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,x)={\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^xG_{l^{}l}^x({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_i^1_i^2)^3U_l(\varphi _1)U_l(\varphi _2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}\varphi _1\varphi _2{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^xG_{l^{}l}^x\stackrel{~}{g}_{4l^{}}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$
(186)
which is the second line of (29). We have dropped terms of the form $`f(\varphi _i,x)`$ such as $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}\varphi _1^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{2,l}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}\varphi _2^2`$ (resulting from the expansion of the exponential in (13) to order 0), or $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2\varphi _1^2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2\varphi _2^2`$ (resulting from the expansion of the exponential in (13) to order 1 but acting respectively with $`^2.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}^2`$ or $`^1.G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}^1`$) because they do not give any contribution to the effective action. Indeed, the contribution of such terms to the interaction functional $`𝒰_l(\varphi )`$ (10), will be

$`V_l(\varphi _x,\varphi _y,xy)=f(\varphi _x,xy)\delta (xy){\displaystyle _z}f(\varphi _x,z)`$
$`𝒰_l(\varphi ){\displaystyle _{x,y}}(f(\varphi _x,xy)\delta (xy){\displaystyle _z}f(\varphi _x,z))`$
$`={\displaystyle _{x,y}}f(\varphi _x,xy){\displaystyle _{x,z}}f(\varphi _x,z)=0`$
where we assumed parity $`f(\varphi _i,x)=f(\varphi _i,x)`$ (which is the case here) and translational invariance. To treat the integral over $`l^{}`$ in (186), we use an integration by part as in (179), one gets

$`{\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{3}}\varphi _1\varphi _2{\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^xG_{l^{}l}^x\stackrel{~}{g}_{4l^{}}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N+2}{18}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2\varphi _1\varphi _2(G_l^x)^3+O(ϵ\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2,\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^3)`$
which leads to (30). Using (181), the last term in (30) reads (forgetting for the discussion the numerical prefactor)

$`H(q,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)={\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1)(G_l^x)^3`$ (187)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)^3}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}\left({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/2a}\right)^3`$
where the integral over $`x`$ is evaluated in $`d=4`$ (as this term is already of order $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2`$). For any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$, this integral is well defined but in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$, the integrand is not any more regularized at small $`x`$ and there is a logarithmic divergence. We are interested in the limit $`q,\mathrm{\Lambda }_l\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$. A simple way to isolate this divergence is to rewrite it as

$`H(q,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)=`$ (188)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi ^2)^3}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(qx)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/2a})^3`$
$`+{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(qx)^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/2a})^3\}`$
The limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ can be taken safely in the second term, the UV divergence coming only from the first one which can be written

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(qx)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}\left({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/2a}\right)^3=h\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}}\right)`$
$`h(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_4}{8}}q^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dx}{x}}({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2/2a}e^{\lambda x^2/2a})^3`$
where in the second line we performed the change of variable $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx`$ and denoted $`\stackrel{~}{S}_4=2\pi ^2`$ the unit sphere area in dimension $`d=4`$. Interestingly, we have (using the variable $`u=\lambda x^2`$), up to terms of order $`\lambda ^2`$:

$`h^{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{3\stackrel{~}{S}_4q^2}{16\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2a}e^{u/2a}\left(_a1e^{u/2a}\right)^2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_4q^2}{16\lambda }}\left[\left({\displaystyle _a}1e^{u/2a}\right)^3\right]_{u=0}^{u=\mathrm{}}+O(\lambda ^2)={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{S}_4q^2}{16\lambda }}`$
where we have used $`c(0)=_a=1`$, which leads to $`h(\lambda )\frac{\pi ^2q^2}{8}\mathrm{ln}\lambda +O(\lambda ^1)`$. Finally one obtains

$`H(q,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0,\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)={\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{(4\pi )^4}}(\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}}+\chi ^{(2)}(q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_l))+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)`$
$`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{4}{\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{i\stackrel{~}{q}x}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{q}x)^2){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^6}}\left({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2/2a}\right)^3`$
which gives (up to the factor $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{4,l}^2(N+2)/18`$), the last term in (30). Using $`1/x^6=1/2_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^2e^{tx^2}`$, one can compute the integral over $`x`$ in $`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})`$:

$`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _{a,b,c}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{(t+\alpha _3)^2}}(e^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{4(t+\alpha _3)}}1`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{4(t+\alpha _3)}})`$
with $`\alpha _3=\frac{1}{2a}+\frac{1}{2b}+\frac{1}{2c}`$ from which we easily obtain the asymptotic behavior

$`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})\stackrel{~}{q}^2{\displaystyle _{a,b,c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48\alpha _3}}\stackrel{~}{q}1`$
$`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}\stackrel{~}{q}1`$
as annouced in the text (32). This yields a universal result for the $`\eta `$ exponent. In addition $`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})`$ gives the scaling function of the two point correlator $`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})=2\stackrel{~}{q}^2Q(\stackrel{~}{q}^2)`$ where $`Q(y)`$ was computed in aharony\_fisher  in the particular case of a IR ”massive” cutoff function of the form (7). Although our expression is more general we have checked through series expansion that it coincides with the expression given in aharony\_fisher  for that choice of the cutoff.

Performing two integrations by part one can rewrite:

$`\chi ^{(2)}(\stackrel{~}{q})={\displaystyle _{a,b,c>0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{C}(a)\widehat{C}(b)}{a^2b^2}}\widehat{c}(c){\displaystyle \frac{4}{q^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{4}{q^2}}(1e^{q^2/(4\alpha _3)})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha _3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{8\alpha _3^2}})`$ (189)
with $`\widehat{C}(a)=_a^{\mathrm{}}𝑑a^{}\widehat{c}(a^{})`$.

### C.3 Quartic contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l(\varphi )`$

The quartic term in (29) is obtained by inserting (18) in (13) and expanding the exponential in (13) to order zero. One gets, using (174)

$`F_l(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,x)={\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^x({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}_i^1_i^2)^2U_l(\varphi _1)U_l(\varphi _2)`$
$`=({\displaystyle \frac{N+4}{(3!)^2}}\varphi _1^2\varphi _2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{(3!)^2}}(\varphi _1\varphi _2)^2){\displaystyle _0^l}𝑑l^{}_l^{}G_l^{}^xG_l^{}^x\stackrel{~}{g}_{4l^{}}^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^{}^{2ϵ}`$
(190)
which is the last line in (29) (here again we have dropped terms of the form $`f(\varphi _i,x)`$ coming from (174)). The integral over $`l^{}`$ in (190) is then treated as previously (179). Then, when computing the Fourier transform, one obtains (35), with, using (181)

$`\chi _l^{(4)}(q)={\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1)(G_l^x)^2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}\left({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a}e^{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/2a}\right)^2`$
For any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l,\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ finite, this function is well defined, and we see that the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ is also well defined, thus

$`\chi _l^{(4)}(q)=\chi ^{(4)}(q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_l)`$
$`\chi ^{(4)}(\stackrel{~}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^4}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{i\stackrel{~}{q}x}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{x^4}}({\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2/2a})^2+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)`$
the integral over $`x`$ can be computed using $`1/x^4=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tte^{tx^2}`$, one obtains

$`\chi ^{(4)}(\stackrel{~}{q})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{ab}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t{\displaystyle \frac{t}{(t+\alpha _2)^2}}(e^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}{4(t+\alpha _2)}}1)`$
with $`\alpha _2=1/2a+1/2b`$, from which we extract the following asymptotic behaviors

$`\chi ^{(4)}(\stackrel{~}{q})\stackrel{~}{q}^2{\displaystyle _{a,b,c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{128\alpha _2}}\stackrel{~}{q}1`$
$`\chi ^{(4)}(\stackrel{~}{q}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{q}1`$
as announced in the text (37,38).

## Appendix D detailed calculations for the CO Model - statics.

### D.1 $`\beta _{g_l}`$-function

The $`\beta `$-function for the coupling constant $`g_l^K`$ is obtained by inserting (49) in (171). This gives straightforwardly (50) using $`_lG_l^{x=0}=\frac{T}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑uc^{}(u)=\frac{T}{2\pi }`$. One has also $`G_{l^{}l}^{x=0}=\frac{T}{2\pi }(l^{}l)`$. Considering specifically $`g_l^{1,1}=g_l`$, we first consider the possible fusion rules such that $`P+Q=K_{1,1}`$ :

$`P+Q=K_{1,1}`$ (191)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ 1\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ 1\\ .\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ 1\\ .\\ 1\\ .\\ .\\ .\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ 1\\ .\\ 1\\ .\end{array}\right)`$ (192)
where $`.0`$, and there are $`2(n2)`$ different ways to choose $`P,Q`$ like that, notice $`P.Q=1`$. Other possible fusions rules involve charges of higher modulus, for instance we could consider

$`P+Q=K_{1,1}`$ (193)
$`\left(\begin{array}{c}.\\ .\\ 1\\ .\\ 2\\ .\\ 1\\ .\end{array}\right)+\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ .\\ 1\\ .\\ 2\\ .\\ .\\ .\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ .\\ 1\\ .\end{array}\right)`$ (194)
with $`P^2=Q^2=6`$.

It is then useful to write the integrals $`\stackrel{~}{J}_l^{(1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{J}_{l,l^{}}^{(2)}`$ in (50) in terms of the variables $`\stackrel{~}{x}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx`$ and $`\mu =ll^{}`$. Using (56), and specifying to $`g_l`$ one has :

$$\frac{\stackrel{~}{J}_l^{(1)}}{2T^2}\underset{P,Q}{}^{}g_l^Pg_l^Q(P.Q)^2=(n2)g_l^2_{\stackrel{~}{x}}\gamma _0(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})$$
(195)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2T^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{P,Q}{}^{}}(P.Q)^3{\displaystyle _0^l}dl^{}\stackrel{~}{J}_{l,l^{}}^2g_l^{}^Pg_l^{}^Q=(n2)T{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}}(\gamma _0(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _0(0)){\displaystyle _0^l}d\mu \gamma _\mu (\stackrel{~}{x})(\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _\mu (\stackrel{~}{x}))e^{(4\frac{T}{\pi })\mu }e^{T\gamma _\mu (\stackrel{~}{x})}g_{l\mu }^2`$ (196)
with $`_{P,Q}^{}{}_{}{}^{}_{P,Q,P+Q=K}`$. We study the flow near $`T_c=4\pi `$, and as (196) is already of order $`g_{l\mu }^2`$, we can evaluate the integral over $`\mu `$ exactly at $`T_c`$ : in particular $`e^{(4T/\pi )\mu }=1+O(\tau )`$. Moreover, as the integral is convergent, it is dominated by the vicinity of the fixed point $`\mu =0`$. We can then substitute in (196) $`g_{l\mu }`$ by $`g_l`$. The remaining integral over $`\mu `$ is then straightforwardly computed by integration by parts. (195) together with (196), integrated over $`\mu `$ and using (199), then lead in the limit $`n0`$ to (55):

$`_lg_l=(2{\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi }})g_l2g_l^2\gamma _0(0){\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}}\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l^2}{T_c}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{x}}}(\gamma _0(\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _0(0))(e^{T_c\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x})}1)`$ (197)
To compute the integrals over $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ in (197) in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ at $`T=T_c`$ we first quote some useful relations. Using the decomposition of the cut-off function (17), we have

$`\gamma _\mu (x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}e^{x^2e^{2\mu }/(2a)}`$
$`\gamma _\mu (x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle _{x^2/2a}^{x^2e^{2\mu }/(2a)}}{\displaystyle \frac{dy}{y}}e^y`$ (198)
and the following identities:

$`_\mu \gamma _\mu (x)=\gamma _\mu (x)`$
$`2x^2_{x^2}\gamma _\mu (x)=\gamma _\mu (x)\gamma _{\mu =0}(x)`$ (199)
We first compute these integrals in the semi-bounded domain $`|x|>ϵ`$ and then take the limit $`ϵ0`$, in order to avoid problems of convergence (the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ does not introduce any problem). Let us decompose the integrals over $`\stackrel{~}{x}`$ in the following way, writing $`\frac{_{\mathrm{}}}{2}`$ as:

$`\gamma _0(0){\displaystyle _x^{}}\gamma _l(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_c}}{\displaystyle _x^{}}(\gamma _0(x)\gamma _0(0)(e^{T_c\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x)}1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_c}}{\displaystyle _x^{}}\gamma _0(x)e^{T_c\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_c}}{\displaystyle _x^{}}\gamma _0(0)(e^{T_c\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x)}1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _x^{}}\gamma _0(0)\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x){\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _0(x)}{T_c}}`$
with $`_x^{}_{|x|>ϵ}`$. Using the previous formula (199) for $`l\mathrm{}`$, $`2x^2_{x^2}\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x)=\gamma _{\mu =0}(x),x>0`$ since $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x)=0,x>0`$, together with $`\gamma _0(0)=2/T_c`$ we are left with (performing the change of variable $`u=x^2`$), and denoting $`\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x)=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(x^2)`$

$`\gamma _0(0){\displaystyle _x^{}}\gamma _l(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_c}}{\displaystyle _x^{}}(\gamma _0(x)\gamma _0(0)(e^{T_c\gamma _{\mathrm{}}(x)}1)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{T_c^2}}{\displaystyle _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u(uT_c_u\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u)e^{T_c\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u)}+(e^{T_c\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u)}1))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{T_c}}{\displaystyle _ϵ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u)+u_u\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{T_c^2}}[u(e^{T_c\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u)}1T_c\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u))]_ϵ^{\mathrm{}}`$ (201)
as one recognizes total derivatives in the integrands. Using explicitly (198):

$`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_{\mathrm{}}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}E_1(u/(2a))`$ (202)
where $`E_1(z)=Ei(z)=_z^+\mathrm{}e^z/z`$, with $`Ei(x)`$ the exponential integral function, behaves asymptotically as

$`E_1(z)\gamma _E\mathrm{ln}z+O(z)z1`$ (203)
$`E_1(z){\displaystyle \frac{e^z}{z}}(1+O(1/z))z1`$ (204)
where $`\gamma _E`$ is the Euler constant, the limit $`ϵ0`$ in (201) can be taken safely to obtain

$`_{\mathrm{}}={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{T_c^2}}e^{(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}`$ (205)
which leads, together with (55) to the fixed point value $`g^{}`$ (57).

### D.2 Bi-local term for CO model

We compute in this section the bilocal part in the effective action given by (59). Performing in (59) the change of variable $`l^{}\mu =ll^{}`$ and using the notations (56) and $`G_l^{}^x=T(\gamma _\mu (\stackrel{~}{x})\gamma _l(\stackrel{~}{x}))`$, one gets

$`\widehat{V}_l^{KPq}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1)\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}`$ (206)
$`\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^4}{T^2}}(K.P)^2{\displaystyle _0^l}d\mu \gamma _\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)(\gamma _\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)\gamma _l(\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx))`$
$`\times e^{TK.P\gamma _\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)}e^{(4\frac{T}{\pi })\mu }g_{l\mu }^2`$
As previously, this integral is already of order $`g_{l\mu }^2`$, so it can be evaluated at $`T_c`$, in particular $`e^{(4\frac{T}{\pi })\mu }=1+O(ϵ)`$. Besides the integral over $`\mu `$ is convergent and dominated by $`\mu =0`$, so that we substitute $`g_{l\mu }^2`$ by $`g_l^2`$. The remaining integral over $`\mu `$ is then straightforwardly computed to obtain

$$\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^4}{T^2}g_l^2(\frac{1}{T^2}(e^{T_cK.P\gamma _l(\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)}1)+K.P\frac{\gamma _l(\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)}{T})$$
(207)
where (198) can be written as

$$\gamma _l(\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)=\frac{1}{4\pi }_aE_1(x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/2a)E_1(x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2/2a)$$
(208)
whith the asymptotic behaviors of $`E_1(z)`$ given in (203, 204). For any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ the integral over $`x`$ in (206) is well defined, but we see that in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ (i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_l,q\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$), there is a logarithmic divergence (for small $`x`$) and only for charges such that $`K.P=2`$. Indeed, at small $`x`$, using (203), $`T_cK.P\gamma _l(\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)K.P(\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2x^2))`$, leading to $`e^{T_cK.P\gamma _l(\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)}x^{2K.P}`$. This implies that the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ only diverges for $`K.P=2`$ (there is no problem with the large $`x`$ behavior as the integrand decay exponentially for any couple of charges we consider here).

#### D.2.1 The case of charges $`K.P=1`$ or $`2`$.

For these charges, the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ can be taken directly on (206). This leads to, performing the change of variable $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx`$ and the integral over the angular variable on (206)

$`\widehat{V}_l^{KPq}=q^2g_l^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{T_c^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}(J_0(|\stackrel{~}{q}|r)1)`$ (209)
$`(e^{K.P_aE_1(r^2/2a)}1+K.P{\displaystyle _a}E_1(r^2/2a))`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_l`$ and $`J_0(z)`$ is a Bessel function of the first kind. This defines the function $`\chi ^{K.P}(k)`$ in that case

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k)=4e^{2(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{r}{k^2}}(J_0(|k|r)1)`$
$`(e^{K.P_aE_1(r^2/2a)}1+K.P{\displaystyle _a}E_1(r^2/2a))`$ (210)
The small $`k`$ behavior (the first line of (63)) is straighforwardly obtained as

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k)a_{K,P}+O(k^2)`$ (211)
$`a_{K,P}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}}{2}}{\displaystyle _{u>0}}u(e^{K.P_aE_1(u/2a)}1`$
$`+K.P{\displaystyle _a}E_1(u/2a))`$
where we perfomed the change of variable $`u=r^2`$.

For $`K.P=1`$ or $`2`$, $`re^{K.P_aE_1(r^2/2a)}r^{2K.P+1}`$ when $`r1`$ is analytic in $`0`$ and using $`J_0(k)k^{1/2}\mathrm{cos}(k\frac{\pi }{4})`$ one finds for $`k1`$

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑r\frac{r}{k^2}J_0(|k|r)(e^{K.P_aE_1(r^2/2a)}1)O(\frac{1}{k^{5/2}})$$
(212)
We have moreover

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{r}{k^2}}(J_0(|k|r)1){\displaystyle _a}E_1(r^2/2a)`$
$`={\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{22e^{ak^2/2}ak^2}{k^4}}`$ (213)
Using (213) together with (212) one obtains the leading behavior of $`\chi ^{K,P}(k)`$ (D.2.1) in the large $`k`$ limit, i.e. the first line of (64)

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k)b_{K.P}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2}}`$ (214)
$`b_{K.P}=2e^{2(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}({\displaystyle _{u>0}}(e^{K.P_aE_1(\frac{u}{2a})}1)`$
$`2K.Pc^{}(0))`$
where we made the change of variable $`u=r^2`$ and used $`c^{}(0)=_aa`$.

#### D.2.2 The case of charges $`K.P=1`$

In that case, $`\chi ^{K.P}(k)`$ is formally obtained as previously (D.2.1), the small $`k`$ behavior being still given by (211). However the large $`k`$ behavior is dominated by the small $`r`$ region and as noticed previously for $`r1`$, $`r(e^{K.P_aE_1(r^2/2a)}1)r^{2K.P+1}=r^1`$, which leads to a logarithmic divergence in the large $`k`$ limit. It can be obtained by computing

$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑rr(J_0(kr)1)(e^{_aE_1(r^2/2a)}1)`$
$`e^{\gamma _E+_a\mathrm{ln}2a}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r}}(J_0(kr)1)`$
$`e^{\gamma _E+_a\mathrm{ln}2a}\mathrm{ln}kk1`$ (215)
The last term in (D.2.1) has the same behavior (213) independently of $`K.P`$ and (D.2.2) together with (D.2.1) for $`K.P=1`$ lead to the second line of (64)

$`\chi ^{K,P}(k)b_1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}k}{k^2}}`$
$`b_1=4e^{\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a}`$ (216)
#### D.2.3 The case of charges $`K.P=2`$

As pointed out previously, there is in that case a logarithmic divergence when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_01`$. We isolate this divergence by writing

$`\widehat{V}_l^{KPq}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _x}(qx)^2\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(qx)^2)\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}`$ (217)
the second term being well defined in the limit $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$. We focus now on the first part, using the explicit expression of $`\gamma _l(\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx)`$ (198)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _x}(qx)^2\widehat{F}_l^{KKx}=`$ (218)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8T_c^4}}g_l^2q^2{\displaystyle _x}x^2\{e^{2_aE_1(\frac{x^2}{2a})E_1(\frac{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2})}1`$
$`2({\displaystyle _a}E_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2}{2a}}\right)E_1\left({\displaystyle \frac{x^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}{2a\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}}\right))\}=({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}})`$
where we made the change of variable $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx`$. To anlyse the large argument behavior of $`(\lambda )`$, we take the derivative w.r.t $`\lambda `$

$`^{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4T_c^4}}g_l^2q^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑xx^3`$ (219)
$`{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\lambda }}e^{\frac{\lambda x^2}{2a}}(e^{2(_aE_1(\frac{x^2}{2a})E_1(\frac{\lambda x^2}{2a}))}1)`$
where we have used $`E_1^{}(z)=e^z/z`$. Making the change of variable $`u=\lambda x^2`$ in $`^{}(\lambda )`$ one obtains:

$`^{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8T_c^4}}g_l^2q^2{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\lambda ^3}}u`$
$`{\displaystyle _a}2e^{\frac{u}{2a}}(e^{2(_aE_1(\frac{u}{2a\lambda })E_1(\frac{u}{2a}))}1)`$
using the large $`\lambda `$ behavior $`E_1(u/(2a\lambda ))\gamma _E+_a\mathrm{ln}(2a)\mathrm{ln}(u/\lambda )+O(1/\lambda )`$ one gets

$`^{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8T_c^4}}g_l^2q^2e^{2_a(\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}2a)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{u}}e^{\frac{u}{2a}}e^{2_aE_1(\frac{u}{2a})}+O(\lambda ^2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8T_c^4}}g_l^2q^2e^{2_a(\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}2a)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}[e^{2_aE_1(\frac{u}{2a})}]_0^{\mathrm{}}+O(\lambda ^2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{8T_c^4}}g_l^2q^2e^{2_a(\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}2a)}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}+O(\lambda ^2)`$ (220)
where we have used the asymptotic behaviors (203,204). This leads finally to

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _x}(qx)^2\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}=\delta _{K,P}A_lq^2\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_l}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0}})+O(\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2)`$
$`A_l={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{4T_c^4}}g_l^2e^{2_a(\gamma _E+\mathrm{ln}2a)}`$ (221)
which is the first term in (61) with the amplitude $`A_l`$ given in (62).

In the second line of (217), we perform the change of variable $`x\mathrm{\Lambda }_lx`$ and the integral over the angular variable to get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _x}(e^{iqx}1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(qx)^2)\widehat{F}_l^{KPx}`$
$`=q^2g_l^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{T_c^4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{r}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}(J_0(|\stackrel{~}{q}|r)1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{q}^2r^2)`$
$`(e^{2_aE_1(r^2/2a)}12{\displaystyle _a}E_1(r^2/2a))`$ (222)
where $`J_0(z)`$ is a Bessel function of the first kind, from which we get the function $`\chi ^{K.P}(k)`$ defined in the text for $`K.P=2`$

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k)=4e^{2(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle \frac{r}{k^2}}(J_0(|k|r)1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}k^2r^2)`$
$`(e^{2_aE_1(r^2/2a)}12{\displaystyle _a}E_1(r^2/2a))`$ (223)
the small $`k`$ behavior (i.e. the second line of (63) in the text) is easily obtained

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k)a_2k^2k1`$ (224)
$`a_2={\displaystyle \frac{e^{2(\gamma _E_a\mathrm{ln}2a)}}{32}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑uu^2`$
$`(e^{2_aE_1(u/2a)}12{\displaystyle _a}E_1(u/2a))`$
where we made the change of variable $`u=r^2`$. The large $`k`$ behavior is governed by the small $`r`$ region in the integral (D.2.3), where $`r(e^{2_aE_1(r^2/2a)}12_aE_1(r^2/2a))e^{2\gamma _E+_a\mathrm{ln}2a}r^3`$, which implies for $`k1`$

$`\chi ^{K.P}(k){\displaystyle \frac{4}{k^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{r^3}}(J_0(|k|r)1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}k^2r^2)+O(1)`$
$`\mathrm{ln}k+O(1)`$ (225)
which is the last line of (64) in the text.

## Appendix E Detailed calculations for the CO model : Equilibrium dynamics.

### E.1 Derivation of the RG flow.

We restrict our analysis to order one $`O(U_l)`$, and at this order the RG flow reads (14)

$`_lU_l(u,i\widehat{u})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{l,ij}^{x=0}_i_jU_l(u,i\widehat{u})`$ (226)
where $`U_l(u,i\widehat{u})`$ is given by (85) and the indices $`i,j`$ formally refer to the components of the vector $`\varphi `$ (75) and the time dependence, i.e. $`_i\frac{\delta }{\delta u_t},\frac{\delta }{\delta i\widehat{u}_t}`$. From (78), the matrix $`G_{l,tt^{}}^q`$ has the following expression

$`G_l^q=\left(\begin{array}{cc}C_l^q& R_l^q\\ R_l^q& 0\end{array}\right)`$ (229)
With these notations, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{l,ij}^{x=0}_i_j={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u}}C_l^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u}}R_l^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta i\widehat{u}}}`$
where we will often use the matrix notation for time, i.e $`uv=_tu_tv_t`$. Acting with this operator on $`U_l(u,i\widehat{u})`$, one gets

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}G_{l,ij}^{x=0}_i_j({\displaystyle _t}i\widehat{u}_{xt}F_{lt}(u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{tt^{}}}i\widehat{u}_{xt}i\widehat{u}_{xt^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt^{}}(u))`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _{tt^{}}}i\widehat{u}_ti\widehat{u}_t^{}{\displaystyle _{t_1t_1^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1}}}C_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1^{}}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt^{}}(u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _t}i\widehat{u}_t{\displaystyle _{t_1t_1^{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1}}}C_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1^{}}}}F_{lt}(u)`$
$`{\displaystyle _t}i\widehat{u}_t{\displaystyle _{t_1>t_1^{}}}R_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt_1^{}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _{t_1>t}}R_{lt_1t}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1}}}F_t(u)`$ (232)
The last term vanishes by causality since $`F_t(u)`$ depends on $`u_{t_1}`$ with $`t_1<t`$ only. Identifying in (226) the coefficient of the powers in the field $`i\widehat{u}`$ one gets (89) in the text.

The first equation of (89) is easily solved, and it gives

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt^{}}(u)=e^{\frac{1}{2}_{t_1t_1^{}}\frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1}}C_{lt_1t_1^{}}^{x=0}\frac{\delta }{\delta u_{t_1^{}}}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l=0tt^{}}(u)`$ (233)
$`=2e^{C_{l0}^{x=0}+C_{ltt^{}}^{x=0}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2g_0\mathrm{cos}(u_{xt}u_{xt^{}})`$
where we have used $`C_{l=00}^{x=0}=0`$. From the previous study of the statics, one has that

$`e^{C_{l0}^{x=0}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2g_0=\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2g_l+O(g_l^2)`$ (234)
which leads together with (233) to the first line in (91). By taking the functional derivative w.r.t. $`u_{xt^{}}`$ in the second line of (89) and using the same manipulations one gets the second line in (91).

### E.2 Computation of the dynamical exponent $`z`$.

Here we compute the self energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }`$ (94) given by

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lt}`$ (235)
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lt}=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2g_l\left(R_{lt}^{x=0}e^{C_{lt}^{x=0}}\delta (t){\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t^{}R_{lt^{}}^{x=0}e^{C_{lt^{}}^{x=0}}\right)`$
Notice the terms proportional to $`\delta (t)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lt}`$ (not given in the text (91) for clarity) which guarantees that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega =0}=0`$, and with the explicit expressions for the bare correlation and response functions (80) computed with the cut-off decompostion (17)

$`C_{lt}^{x=0}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|t|+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}}{|t|+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}}\right)`$ (236)
$`R_{lt}^{x=0}={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (t)}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}}}`$ (237)
After an integration by part in (235) and using those explicit expressions one gets to order $`\tau `$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }=\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2g_l}{T_c}i\omega _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}}{t+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)}1)$$
(238)
This expression is logarithmically divergent for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$ (the integrand behaves as $`1/t`$ at small $`t`$ in this limit), and a way to isolate this divergence is to decompose this integral in the following way (and performing the change of variable $`tt/\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2`$)

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }={\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}i\omega {\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\stackrel{~}{\omega }t}(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}i\omega {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(e^{i\stackrel{~}{\omega }t}1)(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}i\omega {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}1)`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=\omega /\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2`$ and $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$. In the first two lines we can take safely the limit $`\lambda 0`$ and we focus now on the divergent part of the last term

$`(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}i\omega {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑te^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}`$
Taking the derivative w.r.t. $`\lambda `$, one has

$`^{}(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}i\omega {\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda )}{\lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt{\displaystyle _a}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2}}})e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}`$
In the integral of the second line, we can take the limit $`\lambda 0`$, it gives

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^1}dtt{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}t+\frac{a}{2}}+O(1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\lambda }}(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{a}{2})}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{a}{2})})+O(1)`$
The last term in (E.2) can be integrated by parts, to get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\lambda }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑tt{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{t+\frac{a}{2}}{t+\frac{\lambda a}{2}}\right)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(\lambda )}{\lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{2g_l}{T_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\lambda }}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1+\frac{a}{2})}+O(1)`$ (242)
Finally $`^{}(\lambda )`$ in (E.2) can be written as

$`^{}(\lambda )i\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{g_l}{2T_c}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\lambda }}+O(1))`$
$`(\lambda )i\omega ({\displaystyle \frac{g_l}{2T_c}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}\mathrm{ln}\lambda +O(1))`$ (243)
which gives together with the last line of (E.2) the first term in (96) with the amplitude $`B_l=\frac{g_l}{2T_c}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}`$. The first two lines of (E.2) where we take the limit $`\lambda 0`$ define the function $`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )`$ of (96):

$`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )=4e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}\{{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}dte^{i\nu t}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(t+\frac{a}{2})}1)`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^1}dt(e^{i\nu t}1)({\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(t+\frac{a}{2})}1)\}`$ (244)
The small argument behavior of $`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )`$ is dominated by the large $`t`$ region of the integrand (i.e. the first line of (E.2)). Using that $`(\frac{1}{t}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(t+\frac{a}{2})}1)_a\frac{a}{2t}`$ for $`t1`$, one gets

$`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )4e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\nu t}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}\nu 1`$
$`4e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}\mathrm{ln}\nu \nu 1`$ (245)
which is the asymptotic behavior announced in the text (98) with the non universal amplitude $`a_{\text{dyn}}=4e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}_a\frac{a}{2}`$. The large $`\nu `$ behavior of $`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )`$ is governed by the small $`t`$ region of the integrand, i.e. the second line of (E.2):

$`\chi ^{\text{(dyn)}}(\nu )4e^{_a\mathrm{ln}2a}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t(e^{i\nu t}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}`$
$`\mathrm{ln}\nu \nu 1`$ (246)
which is the asymptotic behavior annouced in the text (99).

We show here how to take directly, in a cruder way, the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lt}`$ (235). Indeed, using the explicit expression of $`C_{lt}^{x=0}`$ and $`R_{lt}^{x=0}`$ (236), one has

$`C_{lt}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}(\mathrm{ln}(4\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t+2a)\mathrm{ln}(2a)2l)+O(e^{2l})`$
$`R_{lt}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}}+O(e^{2l})`$ (247)
This allows to take the large $`l`$ limit in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lt}`$ at $`T_c`$ (as it is already of order $`\tau `$)

$$\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{lt}=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}{2\pi }g^{}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(2a)}_a\frac{1}{t+\frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t+2a)}$$
(248)
for $`t>0`$. We then obtain directly $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }`$ in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$ as

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }={\displaystyle \frac{g^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(2a)}}{2\pi }}i\omega {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}4\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t+2a}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{g^{}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(2a)}}{2\pi }}i\omega {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}t}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}4t+2a}`$ (249)
The small $`\omega /\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2`$ behavior is governed by the large $`t`$ region of the integrand, which gives

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{l\omega }{\displaystyle \frac{g^{}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(2a)}}{2\pi }}i\omega {\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}e^{i\frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}t}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4t}}`$
$`B^{}i\omega \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right)+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{i\omega }{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}}1`$ (250)
which gives the same result obtained by the previous analysis (100).

### E.3 Scaling function at equilibrium

In this section, we show how to solve the equation for the response function (107). First, it is natural to search for a solution under the form $`_t^q=e^{q^2t}𝒢_t^q`$. Then, performing the change of variable $`u=tt_1`$ and using the explicit expression (248), one gets the following equation for $`𝒢_t^q`$:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}𝒢_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=4B^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4u+2a)}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2u}`$
$`4B^{}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑u{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4u+2a)}`$ (251)
where $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t`$, with the intial conditions:

$`𝒢_{0^+}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1`$ (252)
$`𝒢_0^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=0`$ (253)
The second term in the l.h.s. is a total derivative and can be integrated. Performing an integration by part on the first term one gets

$`𝒢_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1+4B^{}(\stackrel{~}{q}^2{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}dv{\displaystyle _0^v}due^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4u+2a)}e^{q^2u}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}dve^{q^2v}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4v+2a)})`$ (254)
Performing an integration by part in the integral over $`v`$ on the first integral and peforming the change of variable $`u^{}=q^2u`$ in the remaining integrals one gets

$`𝒢_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1+4B^{}((\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}}}due^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a)}(e^u1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑uue^ue^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a)}`$ (255)
$`+(\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}}}due^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a)})`$ (256)
We now want to find the scaling function, i.e. the asymptotic behavior when $`\stackrel{~}{q}0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0\mathrm{}`$), keeping $`\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}=y`$ fixed. In the two first lines of the above expression, the limit $`\stackrel{~}{q}0`$ can be taken safely, although the last term is divergent in this limit. Thus one has

$`𝒢_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1+4B^{}((\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}1){\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}}}du{\displaystyle \frac{e^u1}{4u}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}}}due^u`$
$`+(\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}}}due^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a)})+O(\stackrel{~}{q}^2)`$ (257)
To find the asymptotic behavior of the last term we write

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^y}𝑑ue^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a)}=`$ (258)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^y}𝑑u(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a)}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a}})`$ (259)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^y}𝑑u{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a}}`$ (260)
In the integral on the second line, we can take the limit $`\stackrel{~}{q}0`$ by making the change of variable $`\lambda =u/\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$, and the second can be done exactly. We thus have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑ue^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{4u}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}+2a)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}{\displaystyle _a}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4\lambda +2a)}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\lambda +2a}}+O(\stackrel{~}{q}^2)`$
Finally, using

$`{\displaystyle _0^y}𝑑u{\displaystyle \frac{e^u1}{4u}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\gamma _E+Ei(y)\mathrm{ln}y)`$ (261)
one has, up to terms of order $`\stackrel{~}{q}^2`$

$`𝒢_{\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=1+B^{}((y1)Ei(y)+1e^y+(1y)(\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}^2+\rho ))`$
$`\rho =\gamma _E+{\displaystyle _a}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}}4{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\lambda e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4\lambda +2a)}+4{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\lambda +2a}}`$
(262)
which yields the scaling function given in the text.

## Appendix F Nonequilibrium dynamics of the CO model.

### F.1 Some useful expressions

To begin with, we give the explicit expression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt^{}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}`$ and their limiting expression when $`l\mathrm{}`$ in the case of nonequilibrium dynamics. The general expression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt^{}}(u)`$, i.e. the first line of (233) is still valid for non equilibrium dynamics. To evaluate it, we only need the expression of $`C_{ltt^{}}^{x=0}`$ that we compute from (127) using the same cutoff function $`c(z)`$ as previously (17):

$`C_{ltt^{}}^{x=0}={\displaystyle \frac{T}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _a}(\mathrm{ln}(t+t^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}})\mathrm{ln}(|tt^{}|+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{4\pi }}\mathrm{ln}(t+t^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}})+\mathrm{ln}(|tt^{}|+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }_l^2}}))`$ (263)
Notice that the response function $`R_{tt^{}}^{x=0}`$ has its equilibrium expression. From (233) and (F.1) one obtains

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ltt^{}}(u)=e^{\frac{1}{2}C_{ltt}^{x=0}\frac{1}{2}C_{lt^{}t^{}}^{x=0}+C_{ltt^{}}^{x=0}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{l=0tt^{}}(u)`$ (264)
Using (F.1) one has, using $`T=T_c=4\pi `$ to this order:

$`\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{ltt}^{x=0}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}C_{lt^{}t^{}}^{x=0}+C_{ltt^{}}^{x=0}`$
$`={\displaystyle _a}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2|tt^{}|+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2(t+t^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{2}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4}})+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{4}}`$ (265)
and using the definition (V.2), one obtains finally

$`D_{tt^{}}=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}D_{ltt^{}}`$ (266)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2T_cB^{}}{2}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2|tt^{}|+\frac{a}{2})+\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2(t+t^{})+\frac{a}{2})}`$
$`\times e^{_a\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t+\frac{a}{4})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t^{}+\frac{a}{4})}`$
where we have used the expression of $`B^{}`$ given in (100). The expression for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}`$ can be obtained in a very similar way :

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{tt^{}}=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ltt^{}}`$ (267)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^4B^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _a}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\theta (tt^{})}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2(tt^{})+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2|tt^{}|+\frac{a}{2})}`$
$`\times e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2(t+t^{})+\frac{a}{2})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t+\frac{a}{4})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t^{}+\frac{a}{4})}`$
$`\delta (tt^{}){\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2(tt_1)+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2|tt_1|+\frac{a}{2})}`$
$`\times e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2(t+t_1)+a/2)\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t+\frac{a}{4})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t_1+\frac{a}{4})}\}`$
These expressions (266,267) will be very useful to determine explicit expressions for $`_{tt^{}}^q=lim_l\mathrm{}_{ltt^{}}^q`$ and $`𝒞_{tt^{}}^q=lim_l\mathrm{}𝒞_{ltt^{}}^q`$ by solving perturbatively (104,105).

### F.2 Nonequilibrium response function : detailed calculations.

The starting point of our analysis is the equation (104) that we solve perturbatively by replacing, in the rhs of this equation, $`_{ltt^{}}^q`$ by its bare value. One obtains, in the limit $`l\mathrm{}`$, using (267), and in terms of the rescaled variables $`\stackrel{~}{t}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^2t`$, $`\stackrel{~}{q}=q/\mathrm{\Lambda }_0`$:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}+\stackrel{~}{q}^2_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=`$ (268)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\stackrel{~}{t}t_1)+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{t}t_1+\frac{a}{2})}`$
$`\times e^{_a\mathrm{ln}((\stackrel{~}{t}+t_1)+\frac{a}{2})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{t}+\frac{a}{4})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(t_1+\frac{a}{4})}`$
$`\times \left(\theta (t_1\stackrel{~}{t^{}})e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(t_1\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}\right)`$
Let us first focus on the last term in the rhs of (268) where we make the change of variable $`t_1=u\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and analysing the limit $`\stackrel{~}{t}1`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑u{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})}`$
$`\times e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1+u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(u+\frac{a}{4\stackrel{~}{t}})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{t}+\frac{a}{4})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{(t)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})}`$
$`\times e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1+u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(u+\frac{a}{4\stackrel{~}{t}})}=Q`$ (269)
In the integrand one can not directly take the limit $`\stackrel{~}{t}`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{}`$ because it generates a divergence of the integral when $`u1`$. Therefore we substract the divergent term in the following way

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}{\displaystyle _0^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})}`$
$`\times \left(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1+u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(u+\frac{a}{4\stackrel{~}{t}})}2\right)`$ (270)
Interestingly except in the first line, one can take directly the limit $`\stackrel{~}{t}\mathrm{}`$ in the integrand of the two last lines using

$`\underset{\stackrel{~}{t}\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})}`$
$`\times \left(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1+u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(u+\frac{a}{4\stackrel{~}{t}})}2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1u)^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1+u}{\sqrt{u}}}2)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u}(1+\sqrt{u})^2}}`$ (271)
and the divergence for $`u1`$ is cured. Then all the remaining integrals can be performed exactly, giving finally

$$Q=B^{}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}\left(e^{_a\mathrm{ln}\frac{a}{2}}+\frac{1}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}+O(\stackrel{~}{t}^2)\right)$$
(272)
We now perform exactly the same manipulations on the first term in the rhs of (268). Performing the change of variable $`t_1=u\stackrel{~}{t}`$ and considering the limit $`\stackrel{~}{t}1`$ (keeping $`\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t}`$,$`\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{t}/\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ fixed) one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}/\stackrel{~}{t}}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(u\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}}{1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}}}`$
$`\times e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})+\mathrm{ln}(1+u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}(u+\frac{a}{4\stackrel{~}{t}})}`$
$`=B^{}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}/\stackrel{~}{t}}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(u\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}}{1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(1u+\frac{a}{2\stackrel{~}{t}})}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}/\stackrel{~}{t}}^1}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(u\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}}{\sqrt{u}(1+\sqrt{u})^2}}+O(\stackrel{~}{t}^2)`$ (273)
where we have used the same trick (F.2) as previously. Using (F.2) together with (272) on can write (268) in a rather simple way

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}+\stackrel{~}{q}^2_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=`$
$`4B^{}{\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _a}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{tt_1+\frac{a}{2}}}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(4(\stackrel{~}{t}t_1)+2a)}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(t_1\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}`$
$`B^{}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}e^{_a\mathrm{ln}(\frac{a}{2})}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{t}t_1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(t_1\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}}{(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\sqrt{t_1})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}\right)`$ (274)
The two first lines correspond to equilibrium fluctuations (E.3) and their contribution to the response function has already been computed (110). The last term does not depend any more on the cutoff function and characterizes the contributions coming from nonequilibrium fluctuations. The linearity of this equation suggests then to look for a solution under the form $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{eq}}+_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{noneq}}`$, where $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{eq}}=\stackrel{~}{q}^{z2}F_R^{\text{eq}}(\stackrel{~}{q}^z(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{}))`$ (108) and $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{noneq}}=e^{\stackrel{~}{q^2}(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}H_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^q`$ with $`H_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ determined by (268)

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}}H_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}={\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}\left({\displaystyle _{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{t}t_1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(t_1\stackrel{~}{t})}}{(\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{t}}+\sqrt{t_1})^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{t}}}\right)`$
$`H_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=H_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=0`$ (275)
This allows to write a close expression for the perturbative expansion of $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{noneq}}`$ in terms of the scaling variables $`v^{}=\stackrel{~}{q^2}(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})`$, $`u=\frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}`$

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{noneq}}={\displaystyle \frac{B^{}e^v^{}}{2}}({\displaystyle _{\frac{v^{}}{u1}}^{\frac{uv^{}}{u1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_2}{\sqrt{t_2}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{v^{}}{u1}}^{t_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{\sqrt{t_1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{t_2t_1}}{(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})^2}}`$
$`+\mathrm{ln}u)`$ (276)
Unfortunately it is quite difficult to extract directly the asymptotic behaviors from this double integral. However one can perform straightforward (although tedious) manipulations to obtain a quasi-explicit expression for $`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{noneq}}`$. Performing the natural change of variables $`\alpha =\sqrt{t_2}\sqrt{t_1}`$, $`\beta =\sqrt{t_2}+\sqrt{t_1}`$ one is left with integrals over one variable

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}e^v{\displaystyle _{\frac{v}{u1}}^{\frac{uv}{u1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_2}{\sqrt{t_2}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{v}{u1}}^{t_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{\sqrt{t_1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{t_2t_1}}{(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})^2}}`$
$`=B^{}e^v\left({\displaystyle \frac{u1}{8vu}}{\displaystyle \frac{u1}{8v}}+𝒬({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}},u)+𝒬({\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}})\right)`$
$`𝒬(x,y)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}{\displaystyle _1^\sqrt{y}}𝑑\beta {\displaystyle \frac{e^{x(\beta ^21)}}{(\beta +1)^3}}`$ (277)
Peforming further manipulations we find that one can write:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}\text{noneq}}=\theta \mathrm{ln}ue^v+\tau F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v^{},u)+O(\tau ^2)`$ (278)
$`\theta =B^{}+O(\tau ^2)`$ (279)
where the logarithmic behavior determining $`\theta `$ has been extracted such that the function $`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)`$ has a good limit for $`u\mathrm{}`$, as will be shown below. A useful expression for this function is found as:

$`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)=e^{\gamma _E}\{1e^v\sqrt{\pi }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}}e^{\frac{v}{u1}}(\mathrm{Erf}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}}\mathrm{Erf}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}})`$
$`\sqrt{\pi }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}}e^{\frac{vu}{u1}}\left(\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}}\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}}\right)+e^v(1v)(Ei(v)\mathrm{ln}v\gamma _E)`$
$`+2e^v{\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})_2F_2(\{1,1\},\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},2\},{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}})({\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})_2F_2(\{1,1\},\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},2\},{\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}))`$
$`+e^v\pi \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}\right)\mathrm{Erf}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}}\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{vu}{u1}}}2\sqrt{\pi }(1v){\displaystyle \frac{e^v}{\sqrt{u}}}{\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{\frac{vu}{u1}}}}𝑑se^{\frac{s^2}{u}}\mathrm{Erfi}(s)`$
$`+2(1v)e^v\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{u}}}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{ve^v}{u1}}\mathrm{ln}u\}`$ (280)
where $`\mathrm{Erf}z`$ is the error function, $`\mathrm{Erfi}z`$ is the imaginary error function:

$`\mathrm{Erf}z={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^z}𝑑se^{s^2}`$ (281)
$`\mathrm{Erfi}z={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _0^z}𝑑se^{s^2}`$ (282)
with $`\mathrm{Erfi}z=i\mathrm{Erf}iz`$. One has the following asymptotic behaviors

$`\mathrm{Erf}z2z/\sqrt{\pi }z1`$ (283)
$`\mathrm{Erf}z1e^{z^2}/(\sqrt{\pi }z)z1`$ (284)
and

$`\mathrm{Erfi}z2z/\sqrt{\pi }z1`$ (285)
$`\mathrm{Erfi}ze^{z^2}/(\sqrt{\pi }z)z1`$ (286)
and $`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(\{1,1\},\{\frac{3}{2},2\},z)`$ is a generalized hypergeometric series which has the following asymptotic behaviors

$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(\{1,1\},\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},2\},z)1+O(z)`$ (287)
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(\{1,1\},\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},2\},z)_{z+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^z}{z^{3/2}}}(1+O(z^1))`$
$`{}_{2}{}^{}F_{2}^{}(\{1,1\},\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},2\},z)_z\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}(z)}{2z}}`$
(288)
Under this form, asymptotic behaviors are more easily obtained. Note that we have also performed numerical checks that (F.2) and the starting integral (F.2) do indeed coincide.

Note some simple formulae for the same point response:

$`_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{x=0}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi z(tt^{})}}h(t/t^{})`$ (289)
$`h(u)=u^\theta {\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑vF_R(v,u)`$ (290)
#### F.2.1 Expansion at large $`u`$, $`v`$ fixed.

The asymptotic behavior of $`F_R^1(v,u)`$ is easily obtained in this limit. From (128), one has $`lim_u\mathrm{}F_R^1(v,u)=F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)+lim_u\mathrm{}F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)`$, where $`F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)`$ is given in (109). On the expressions (278, F.2) together with the asymptotic behaviors (283, 285, 287) we see that all terms vanish in this limit except the following ones

$`\underset{u\mathrm{},v\text{fixed}}{lim}F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)=F_R^{1\text{eq}}(v)`$
$`+e^{\gamma _E}\{\sqrt{\pi v}\mathrm{Erf}\sqrt{v}e^v((1v)\mathrm{ln}(4ve^{\gamma _E})`$
$`2v(v{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})_2F_2(\{1,1\},\{{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}},2\},v))\}`$
which leads to (VI.2) in the text.

#### F.2.2 Expansion at large $`v`$, $`u`$ fixed.

Although one can extract more rigorously the large $`v`$ behavior at $`u`$ fixed from the complete expression (278), it is easier to compute it from the starting integral in (F.2). Indeed, in the large $`v`$ limit, the integral will be dominated by the region $`t_2t_1v`$, i.e. one can replace in the integrand (except of course in the term $`e^{t_2t_1}`$ ) $`t_2`$ by $`vu/(u1)`$ and $`t_1`$ by $`v/(u1)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}e^v}{2}}({\displaystyle _{\frac{v}{u1}}^{\frac{uv}{u1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_2}{\sqrt{t_2}}}{\displaystyle _{\frac{v}{u1}}^{t_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dt_1}{\sqrt{t_1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{t_2t_1}}{(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})^2}}`$ (291)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{u}1)^2}{\sqrt{u}}}e^v{\displaystyle _{\frac{v}{u1}}^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_2e^{t_2}{\displaystyle _{\frac{v}{u1}}^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_1e^{t_1}`$
which leads finally to

$`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u){\displaystyle \frac{B^{}}{2\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{u}1)^2}{\sqrt{u}}}+O(v^3)`$ (292)
We have checked that we obtain the same result by performing this expansion on (278). Finally, using the large $`v`$ behavior of $`F_R^{1\text{eq}}`$ (112) and the value of $`B^{}`$ (100), one obtains

$`F_R^1(v,u)e^{\gamma _E}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2v^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{u+1}{\sqrt{u}}}+O(v^3)`$ (293)
which gives (VI.2) in the text.

#### F.2.3 The limit of vanishing momentum.

The limit $`\stackrel{~}{q}0`$ is easily obtained by looking for the leading term in $`F_R(v,u)`$ when $`v=\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})0`$. Using (F.2) together with (128) and (109) one has

$`F_R^1(v)e^{\gamma _E}(\mathrm{ln}v+\gamma _E2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{u}}}{2}})`$ (294)
This logarithmic behavior together with (103) cancels the $`\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{q}`$ divergence in (129) and allows to take the limit of vanishing momentum. We also give here the expression of $`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(0,u)`$, obtained from (278)

$`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(0,u)=2e^{\gamma _E}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\frac{1}{\sqrt{u}}}{2}}`$ (295)
this will be useful for further applications.

### F.3 Nonequilibrium correlation function : detailed calculations.

The starting point of our analysis is the following expression given in the text (134), for $`\stackrel{~}{t}>\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$:

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}=\underset{l\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒞_{l\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (296)
$`=2T{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}𝑑t_1_{\stackrel{~}{t}t_1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}_{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}t_1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}+{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}𝑑t_2_{\stackrel{~}{t}t_1}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}D_{t_1t_2}_{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}t_2}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$
where $`D_{t_1t_2}=lim_l\mathrm{}D_{lt_1t_2}`$ is given in (266), that we expand perturbatively using the expression we obtained for $`_{tt^{}}^q`$ (129). As we did previously for the response function we could keep the complete cut-off dependence in (266). However given the complexity of these manipulations and the experience we acquired before, we know that the only cutoff dependence is contained in an overall nonuniversal scale $`\stackrel{~}{q}\lambda \stackrel{~}{q}`$. For these reasons we will perform the computation using a simplified cutoff $`\widehat{c}(a)=\delta (aa_0)`$ and we will choose $`a_0=2`$ for simplicity. $`D_{t_1t_2}`$ can then be written as (266)

$`D_{t_1t_2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau {\displaystyle \frac{t_1+t_2}{(|t_1t_2|+1)\sqrt{t_1t_2}}}+O(\tau ^2)`$ (298)
where we have dropped the $`a_0`$ dependence where it turns out to be unimportant.

Performing the integrals that do not involve $`F_R^1(v,u)`$ one has

$`𝒞_{tt^{}}^q={\displaystyle \frac{T}{q^2}}F_C^0(v,u)+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{q^2}}\theta \mathrm{ln}uF_C^0(v,u)`$ (299)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{q^2}}(z2)\mathrm{ln}q\left(v{\displaystyle \frac{F_C^0(v,u)}{v}}+F_C^0(v,u)\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2T\theta }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}\left(Ei({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}}\right)\gamma _E\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2T\tau }{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑sF_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v\right)F_R^1({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})`$
$`+F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v\right)F_R^1({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{uv}{u1}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2e^{(t_1+t_2)}`$
$`\times \left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{|t_1t_2|+q^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}\right)`$
where we have used the trick (F.2), and dropped the prime in $`v^{}=\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t}^{})`$ for simplicity. A natural way to perform this computation is to use for $`F_R^1(v,u)`$ the decomposition in an equilibrium and a nonequilibrium contributions (128). Parts of (299) can then be computed analytically:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2T\tau }{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑sF_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{eq}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v\right)`$
$`+F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{eq}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{uv}{u1}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{e^{(t_1+t_2)}}{|t_1t_2|+q^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}\tau }{q^2}}\mathrm{ln}(q^2e^{\gamma _E})TF_C^0(v,u)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}\tau T\{{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\frac{v(u+1)}{u1}}}{q^2}}(42{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}\right)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}\right))+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}(e^{\frac{vu}{u1}}+e^{\frac{v}{u1}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{q^2}}(e^v1+ve^vEi(v))\}`$ (300)
The expressions (299) together with (F.3) allows to identify the following perturbative scaling behavior (120)

$`𝒞_{tt^{}}^q={\displaystyle \frac{T}{q^2}}(F_C^0(v,u)+(z2)v\mathrm{ln}q{\displaystyle \frac{F_C^0(v,u)}{v}}`$
$`+\theta \mathrm{ln}uF_C^0(v,u)+\tau F_C^1(v,u))+O(\tau ^2)`$ (301)
$`F_C^1(v,u)=2e^{\gamma _E}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}\left(Ei({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}}\right)\gamma _E\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}\{e^{\frac{v(u+1)}{u1}}(42{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}\right)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}\right))+2(e^{\frac{vu}{u1}}+e^{\frac{v}{u1}})`$
$`+2(e^v1+ve^vEi(v))\}`$
$`+2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}ds\{F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})`$
$`+F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s}})\}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2})e^{t_1+t_2}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}`$
with the exponents $`z`$ and $`\theta `$ given in (103) and (128). The scaling functions are universal up to a cutoff dependent additive constant. It was explicitly computed for the equilibrium response in (262). Here, we do not determine it and thus we can drop some multiplicative factors of momentum in the $`\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{q}`$ term.

#### F.3.1 Expansion at large $`u`$, $`v`$ fixed.

First, one has

$`F_C^0(v,u)=e^ve^{v\frac{u+1}{u1}}{\displaystyle \frac{2e^vv}{u}}+O(u^2)`$ (302)
We now focus on the asymptotic behavior of $`F_C^1(v,u)`$ for large $`u`$, keeping $`v`$ fixed. Using the small argument behavior of $`Ei(z)\mathrm{ln}z+\gamma _E+O(z)`$ one has for the first line of (F.3) in this limit

$`2e^{\gamma _E}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}\left(Ei({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}}\right)\gamma _E\right)`$
$`O(u^1)`$ (303)
Again using the small argument behavior of $`Ei(z)`$, one has

$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}\{e^{\frac{v(u+1)}{u1}}(42{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}\right)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}\right))+2(e^{\frac{vu}{u1}}+e^{\frac{v}{u1}})`$
$`+2(e^v1+ve^vEi(v))\}`$
$`e^{\gamma _E}e^vv{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{ln}u}{u}}+O(u^1)`$ (304)
One then analyses the integrals involving $`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)`$ :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2T\tau }{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}ds\{F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})`$
$`+F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s}})\}`$ (305)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2T\tau }{q^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\{vF_R^0(v){\displaystyle _0^1}dsF_R^{1\text{noneq}}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})`$
$`+vF_R^0(0)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,\mathrm{})+O(u^1)\}`$ (306)
and the remaining integral in (F.3) where we perform the natural change of variable $`\alpha =\sqrt{t_1}`$, $`\beta =\sqrt{t_2}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{2q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2})e^{t_1+t_2}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}^{\sqrt{\frac{vu}{u1}}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}}𝑑\beta e^{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{1u}}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}^{\sqrt{\frac{vu}{u1}}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}}𝑑\beta e^{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}`$
The first double integral can be performed exactly

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{1u}}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}^{\sqrt{\frac{vu}{u1}}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}}𝑑\beta e^{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{2q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}\left(\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}}\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}}\right)`$
$`\times \mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^v\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}}\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{v}+O(u^1)`$ (307)
And we expand the second one in the following way

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}^{\sqrt{\frac{vu}{u1}}}}𝑑\alpha {\displaystyle _0^{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}}𝑑\beta e^{\alpha ^2+\beta ^2}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{\alpha +\beta }}`$
$`=2{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u1}}}^{\sqrt{\frac{vu}{u1}}}}d\alpha e^{\alpha ^2}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n>2}{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\right)^{n/2}{\displaystyle \frac{a_n}{\alpha ^{n1}}}(1+O(\alpha )))`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{\gamma _E}T_c\tau }{q^2}}e^v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}{\displaystyle _{\sqrt{\frac{v}{u}}}^\sqrt{v}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\alpha }{\alpha }}e^{\alpha ^2}+O(u^1)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _ET_c}\tau }{q^2}}e^v{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u}}\mathrm{ln}u+O(u^1)`$ (308)
Finally, (302,F.3.1,F.3.1,F.3.1) lead to the asymptotic following form for $`F_C(v,u)`$ in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$, $`v`$ fixed,

$`\underset{v\mathrm{}}{lim}F_C(v,u)={\displaystyle \frac{2ve^v}{u}}+\tau {\displaystyle \frac{F_{C,\mathrm{}}^1(v)}{\sqrt{u}}}+O(u^2,\tau u^1,\tau ^2)`$
$`F_{C,\mathrm{}}^1(v)=e^{\gamma _E}e^v\sqrt{\pi v}\mathrm{Erfi}\sqrt{v}`$
notice that the subdominant terms in $`\mathrm{ln}u/u`$ cancel between (F.3.1) and (F.3.1) so that the leading corrections are of order $`u^1`$. (F.3.1) gives the asymptotic behavior given in the text (VI.3).

#### F.3.2 Expansion at large $`v`$, $`u`$ fixed.

In this limit, the terms in the four first lines of (F.3) decay exponentially in this limit. The fifth line however (which corresponds to the equilibrium contribution) decays like a power law. Indeed, using the large $`v`$ behavior of $`Ei(v)e^v(1/v+1/v^2+0(v^3))`$ one has

$`e^{\gamma _E}(e^v1+ve^vEi(v)){\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}}{v}}+O(v^2)`$ (310)
We now analyse the behavior of the terms involving $`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}`$ in (F.3). Using the large $`v`$ behavior of $`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(v,u)`$ (292), one has

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}ds\{F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})`$
$`+F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s}})\}`$ (311)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}ds\{e^{\left(\frac{us}{u1}v\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{(u1)^2}{v^2(1s)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{1/s}1)^2}{\sqrt{1/s}}}`$
$`+e^{\left(\frac{1s}{u1}v\right)}{\displaystyle \frac{(u1)^2}{v^2(us)^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{u/s}1)^2}{\sqrt{u/s}}}\}`$
Notice first on this expression that we are left with convergent integrals over $`s`$. Moreover, in the large $`v`$ limit, due to the exponential prefactors the first term decays also exponentially (for $`u>1`$), and the second one is dominated by $`s=1`$, which leads to a power law decay

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v(u1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{u}1)^2}{\sqrt{u}}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑se^{\left(\frac{1s}{u1}v\right)}O(v^2)`$
We are now left with the double integral in (F.3), which is dominated - also due to the exponential prefactor - by $`t_1vu/(u1)`$ and $`t_2v/(u1)`$. Therefore to get the leading behavior, we substitute $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$ by these values in the integrand (except of course in the exponential $`e^{t_1+t_2}`$). This yields

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2}e^{t_1+t_2}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{u}1)^2}{\sqrt{u}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}e^{v\frac{u+1}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_1e^{t_1}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2e^{t_2}`$
$`+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{u}1)^2}{\sqrt{u}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}+O({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v^2}})`$ (312)
which together with the other term in $`v^1`$ (310) yields (VI.3) in the text.

#### F.3.3 The limit of vanishing momentum.

To obtain the limit of vanishing momentum $`\stackrel{~}{q}0`$ of the correlation function, we look at the behavior of $`F_C(v,u)`$ when $`v0`$, up to order $`O(v)`$ terms (due to the $`q^2`$ prefactor in (F.3)). This is done in the following way

$`2e^{\gamma _E}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}\left(Ei({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}})\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}}\right)\gamma _E\right)`$ (313)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}\{e^{\frac{v(u+1)}{u1}}(42{\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{uv}{u1}}\right)`$
$`2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}Ei\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}\right))+2(e^{\frac{vu}{u1}}+e^{\frac{v}{u1}})`$
$`+2(e^v1+ve^vEi(v))\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{e^{\gamma _E}v}{u1}}(62\mathrm{ln}ve^{\gamma _E}u\mathrm{ln}u+(u+1)\mathrm{ln}(u1)`$
$`+O(v^2)`$
Then using the expression of $`F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(0,u)`$ (295), one has

$`2{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}ds\{F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})`$
$`+F_R^0\left({\displaystyle \frac{1s}{u1}}v\right)F_R^{1\text{noneq}}({\displaystyle \frac{us}{u1}}v,{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s}})\}`$ (314)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s\left\{F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}})+F_R^{1\text{noneq}}(0,{\displaystyle \frac{u}{s}})\right\}`$
$`+O(v^2)`$
$`=4e^{\gamma _E}{\displaystyle \frac{v}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^1}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{s}}{2}}+\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{\frac{s}{u}}}{2}}+O(v^2)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{4e^{\gamma _E}v}{u1}}(\sqrt{u}(u1)\mathrm{ln}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{u}}})2\mathrm{ln}4)+O(v^2)`$
To treat the double integral in the last line of (F.3) we come back to the variables $`\stackrel{~}{t},\stackrel{~}{t^{}},\stackrel{~}{q}`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}\tau e^{\gamma _E}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2})e^{t_1+t_2}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T\tau e^{\gamma _E}e^{\stackrel{~}{q}^2(\stackrel{~}{t}+\stackrel{~}{t^{}})}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2})e^{q^2(t_1+t_2)}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}`$
Under this form, the limit $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ is very simply obtained:

$`\underset{\stackrel{~}{q}0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\stackrel{~}{q}^2}}\tau e^{\gamma _E}e^{v\frac{1+u}{u1}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{vu}{u1}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{v}{u1}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2})e^{t_1+t_2}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T\tau e^{\gamma _E}{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t}}}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}𝑑t_2{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{t_1}\sqrt{t_2}}{\sqrt{t_1t_2}(\sqrt{t_1}+\sqrt{t_2})}}`$
$`=2T\tau e^{\gamma _E}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}\left((u1)\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{u}){\displaystyle \frac{u}{2}}\mathrm{ln}u\right)`$ (316)
Finally (313, F.3.3, F.3.3), together with (F.3) and the complete expression of the correlation function $`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}}`$ (VI.3) lead to

$`𝒞_{\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}^{\stackrel{~}{q}=0}=2T_c\stackrel{~}{t^{}}(1+\tau {\displaystyle \frac{z2}{2}}(\mathrm{ln}(\stackrel{~}{t}\stackrel{~}{t^{}})+\gamma _E)+\theta \mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}`$
$`+\tau F_C^{\text{diff}1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{t}}{\stackrel{~}{t^{}}}}\right))`$
$`F_C^{\text{diff}1}(u)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{\gamma _E}(4\sqrt{u}+(u+1)\mathrm{ln}(u1)`$
$`2(u1)\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{u})2\mathrm{ln}u+68\mathrm{ln}4)`$ (317)
where we have used $`F_C^0(v,u)=v/(u1)+O(v^2)`$, $`_vF_C^0(v,u)=1/(u1)+O(v)`$ and $`v/(u1)=\stackrel{~}{q}^2\stackrel{~}{t^{}}`$ : this gives the scaling form (140) given in the text.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Pascal Chauve for useful discussions on the ERG method at the earliest stage of this work. We thank Leticia Cugliandolo, Daniel Dominguez, Antoine Georges and Alejandro Kolton for discussions and pointing out references.