1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \input{psfig.sty}
3: \topmargin0cm
4: \textwidth14cm
5: \textheight22.5cm
6: \oddsidemargin1cm
7: \evensidemargin1cm
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \begin{document}
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11:
12: \title{
13: \textbf{Monte Carlo test of critical exponents and amplitudes
14: in 3D Ising and $\varphi^4$ lattice models}
15: }
16:
17: \author{J. Kaupu\v{z}s
18: \thanks{E--mail: \texttt{kaupuzs@latnet.lv}} \\
19: Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Latvia\\
20: 29 Rainja Boulevard, LV--1459 Riga, Latvia}
21:
22: \date{\today}
23:
24: \maketitle
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: We have tested the leading correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$
28: in \linebreak $O(n)$--symmetric models on a
29: three--dimensional
30: lattice by analysing the recent Monte Carlo (MC) data. We have found that
31: the effective critical exponent, estimated at finite sizes of the
32: system $L$ and $L/2$, decreases remarkably within the range of the
33: simulated $L$ values. This shows the incorrectness of some claims that
34: $\omega$ has a very accurate value $0.845(10)$ at $n=1$.
35: A selfconsistent infinite volume extrapolation yields
36: row estimates $\omega \approx 0.547$, $\omega \approx 0.573$, and
37: $\omega \approx 0.625$ at $n=1$, $2$, and $3$, respectively, in approximate
38: agreement with the corresponding exact values $1/2$, $5/9$, and $3/5$
39: predicted by our recently developed GFD (grouping of Feynman diagrams) theory.
40: We have fitted the MC data for the susceptibility of 3D Ising model at
41: criticality showing that the effective critical exponent $\eta$ tends
42: to increase well above the usually accepted values around $0.036$.
43: We have fitted the data within $[L;8L]$, including several terms in the
44: asymptotic expansion with fixed exponents, to obtain the effective
45: amplitudes depending on $L$. This method clearly demonstrates that
46: the critical exponents of GFD theory are correct
47: (the amplitudes converge to certain asymptotic values at $L \to \infty$),
48: whereas those of the perturbative renormalization group (RG) theory are
49: incorrect (the amplitudes diverge). A modification of the
50: standard Ising model by introducing suitable "improved" action (Hamiltonian)
51: does not solve the problem in favour of the perturbative RG theory.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: {\bf Keywords}: $\lambda \varphi^4$ model, Ising model,
55: Binder cumulant, Monte Carlo data, critical exponents
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58:
59: Since the exact solution of two--dimensional Ising model has
60: been found by Onsager~\cite{Onsager}, a study of various phase
61: transition models is of permanent interest. Nowadays, phase
62: transitions and critical phenomena is one of the most widely
63: investigated fields of physics. Remarkable progress has been
64: reached in exact solution of two--dimensional models~\cite{Baxter}.
65: Recently, we have proposed~\cite{K1} a novel method based on
66: grouping of Feynman diagrams (GFD) in $\varphi^4$ model.
67: Our GFD theory allows to analyse the asymptotic solution
68: for the two--point correlation function at and near criticality,
69: not cutting the perturbation series. As a result the possible
70: values of exact critical exponents have been obtained~\cite{K1} for
71: the Ginzburg--Landau ($\varphi^4$) model with $O(n)$ symmetry,
72: where $n=1, 2, 3, \ldots$ is the dimensionality of the order
73: parameter. Our predictions completely (exactly) agree with the
74: known exact and rigorous results in two dimensions~\cite{Baxter},
75: and are equally valid also in three dimensions. In~\cite{K1},
76: we have compared our results to some Monte Carlo (MC) simulations
77: and experiments~\cite{IS,SM,GA}. An additional comparison to MC data
78: has been made in~\cite{K2}. It has been shown~\cite{K1,K2} that the
79: actually discussed MC data for 3D Ising~\cite{IS,ADH} and
80: $XY$~\cite{SM} models are fully consistent with our theoretical
81: predictions, but not with those of the perturbative renormalization
82: group (RG) theory~\cite{Wilson,Ma,Justin}.
83: Some data for 3D Heisenberg model~\cite{Janke} also have been discussed
84: in~\cite{K2}. However, these data, likely, are not accurate enough and
85: here we reconsider the estimation of the critical point based on more
86: recent MC results. From the theoretical
87: (mathematical) point of view, the invalidity of the conventional
88: RG expansions has been demonstrated in~\cite{K1}.
89: The current paper, dealing with numerical analysis of
90: the three--dimensional $\lambda \varphi^4$ and Ising models, presents
91: one more confirmation that the correct values of critical exponents
92: are those predicted by the GFD theory.
93:
94: \section{$\lambda \varphi^4$ model and its crossover to Ising model}
95:
96: Here we discuss a $\varphi^4$ model
97: on a three--dimensional cubic lattice. The Hamiltonian of this model,
98: further called $\lambda \varphi^4$ model, is given by
99: \begin{equation} \label{eq:H}
100: H/T= \sum\limits_{\bf x} \left\{ -2 \kappa \sum\limits_{\mu}
101: \varphi_{\bf x} \varphi_{{\bf x}+\hat \mu} + \varphi_{\bf x}^2
102: + \lambda \left( \varphi_{\bf x}^2 -1 \right)^2 \right\} \;,
103: \end{equation}
104: where the summation runs over all lattice sites,
105: $T$ is the temperature, \linebreak $\varphi_{\bf x} \in \, ]-\infty; +\infty[$
106: is the scalar order parameter at the site with coordinate ${\bf x}$,
107: $\hat \mu$ is a unit vector in the $\mu$--th direction,
108: $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ are coupling constants.
109: Obviously, the standard 3D Ising model is recovered in the limit
110: $\lambda \to \infty$ where $\varphi_{\bf x}^2$ fluctuations
111: are suppressed so that, for a relevant configuration,
112: $\varphi_{\bf x}^2 \simeq 1$ or $\varphi_{\bf x} \simeq \pm 1$ holds.
113: The MC data for the Binder cumulant in this
114: $\lambda \varphi^4$ model have been interpreted in accordance with
115: the $\epsilon$--expansion and a perfect agreement
116: with the conventional RG values of critical exponents has
117: been reported in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
118: According to the definition in~\cite{Hasenbusch}, the Binder cumulant
119: $U$ is given by
120: \begin{equation} \label{eq:U}
121: U= \frac{\langle m^4 \rangle}{ \langle m^2 \rangle^2} \;,
122: \end{equation}
123: where
124: $m=L^{-3} \sum_{\bf x} \varphi_{\bf x}$ is the magnetization
125: and $L$ is the linear size of the system.
126: Based on the $\epsilon$--expansion, it has been
127: suggested in~\cite{Hasenbusch} that, in the thermodynamic limit
128: $L \to \infty$, the value of the Binder cumulant
129: at the critical point $\kappa=\kappa_c(\lambda)$ and, equally, at
130: a fixed ratio $Z_a/Z_p=0.5425$ (the precise value is not important)
131: of partition functions with periodic
132: and antiperiodic boundary conditions is a universal constant $U^*$
133: independent on $\lambda$. We suppose that the latter statement
134: is true, but not due to the $\epsilon$--expansion.
135: It is a consequence of some general argument of the RG theory:
136: on the one hand, $U$ is invariant under the RG transformation and,
137: on the other hand, an unique fixed point (not
138: necessarily the Wilson--Fisher fixed point) exists in the case of
139: an infinite system, so that $U \equiv U^*$ holds at $L \to \infty$
140: and $\kappa = \kappa_c(\lambda)$ where $U^*$ is the fixed--point
141: value of $U$. The above conclusion remains true if we allow
142: that the fixed point is defined not uniquely in the sense that it
143: contains some irrelevant degree(s) of freedom
144: (like $c^*$ and $\Lambda$ in the perturbative RG theory discussed
145: in Sec.~2 of~\cite{K1}) not changing $U$.
146: The numerical results in~\cite{HV} confirm the idea that
147: $\lim_{L \to \infty} U(L) = U^*$ holds at criticality, where $U^*$
148: is a universal constant independent on the specific microscopic
149: structure of the Hamiltonian.
150:
151: \section{Estimation of the correction exponent $\omega$}
152: \label{sec:omega}
153:
154: Based on the idea that $U^*$ is constant for a given universality
155: class, here we estimate the correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$.
156: According to~\cite{K2}, corrections to finite--size scaling
157: for the magnetization of the actual 3D Ising and
158: $\lambda \varphi^4$ models are represented by an expansion in terms
159: of $L^{-\omega}$ where $\omega=1/2$. One expects that the
160: magnetization (Binder) cumulant~(\ref{eq:U}) has the same singular
161: structure. Since $\lim_{L \to \infty} U(L,\lambda) \equiv U^*$ holds at
162: a fixed ratio $Z_a/Z_p$, a suitable ansatz for estimation
163: of $\omega$ is~\cite{Hasenbusch}
164: \begin{equation} \label{omef}
165: U(L,\lambda_1)-U(L,\lambda_2) \simeq const \cdot L^{-\omega}
166: \hspace{4ex} \mbox{at} \hspace{2ex} Z_a/Z_p=0.5425 \;,
167: \end{equation}
168: which is valid for any two different nonzero values $\lambda_1$
169: and $\lambda_2$ of the coupling constant $\lambda$.
170: The data for $\Delta U(L)= U(L,0.8)-U(L,1.5)$ can be read
171: from Fig.~1 in~\cite{Hasenbusch} (after a proper magnification)
172: without an essential loss of the numerical accuracy, i.~e., within
173: the shown error bars. Doing so, we have evaluated the effective exponent
174: \begin{equation}
175: \omega_{eff}(L) = \ln \left[ \Delta U(L/2)/ \Delta U(L) \right] / \ln 2 \;,
176: \end{equation}
177: i.~e., $\omega_{eff}(12) \simeq 0.899$,
178: $\omega_{eff}(16) \simeq 0.855$, and $\omega_{eff}(24) \simeq 0.775$.
179: These values are shown in Fig.~\ref{om} by crosses.
180: \begin{figure}
181: \centerline{\psfig{figure=o.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
182: \vspace{-5ex}
183: \caption{\small Effective correction--to--scaling exponent
184: $\omega_{eff}(L)$ in the $O(n)$--symmetric $\lambda \varphi^4$ model
185: with $n=1$ (empty circles and crosses) and $n=3$ (triangles),
186: and $O(2)$--symmetric $dd-XY$ model (solid circles) depending on the
187: system size $L$. The linear least--squares fits give row estimates
188: of the asymptotic $\omega$ values $0.547$, $0.573$,
189: and $0.625$ at $n=1$, $2$, and $3$, respectively.
190: The corresponding theoretical values of the GFD theory
191: $1/2$, $5/9$, and $3/5$
192: (used in the $L^{-\omega}$ scale of the horizontal axis)
193: are indicated by arrows.
194: The dot--dot--dashed line shows the value $0.845(10)$ proposed
195: in~\cite{Hasenbusch} for the $3D$ Ising universality class ($n=1$).}
196: \label{om}
197: \end{figure}
198: Such an estimation,
199: however, can be remarkably influenced by the random scattering
200: of the simulated data points, particularly, at larger sizes where
201: $\Delta U(L)$ becomes small. This effect can be diminished if the
202: values of $\Delta U(L)$ are read from a suitable smoothened curve.
203: A comparison to the original results (without the smoothening)
204: provides some objective criterion of the accuracy of such
205: estimations. We have found that $\Delta U(L)$ within $L \in [7;24]$
206: can be well approximated by a second--order polinomial in $L^{-1/2}$,
207: as shown in Fig.~\ref{du}.
208: \begin{figure}
209: \centerline{\psfig{figure=u.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
210: \vspace{-5ex}
211: \caption{\small The smoothened curve
212: $\Delta U(L)=0.003795-0.003232 L^{-1/2}+0.23433 L^{-1}$
213: for an approximation of $\Delta U(L)=U(L,0.8)-U(L,1.5)$ within
214: the interval $L \in [7;24]$.}
215: \label{du}
216: \end{figure}
217: Without any claims about validity of such
218: an approximation well outside of this interval, we can consider
219: the least--squres fit in Fig.~\ref{du} as an appropriate smoothened
220: curve from which we read $\omega_{eff}(16) \simeq 0.8573$ and
221: $\omega_{eff}(24) \simeq 0.7956$. These values are depicted in
222: Fig.~\ref{om} by empty circles. As we see, the results are similar
223: to those obtained by a direct calculation from the original
224: data points (crosses). However, the values obtained from the
225: smoothened curve (circles) are more
226: accurate and reliable. As regards the smallest size, we suppose
227: that the original estimate $\omega_{eff}(12) \simeq 0.899$ is
228: accurate enough even without any smoothening, since the values
229: of $\Delta U(6)$ and $\Delta U(12)$ are large relative to the
230: statistical errors.
231:
232: In such a way, we see from Fig.~\ref{om}
233: that the effective exponent $\omega_{eff}(L)$ decreases
234: remarkably with increasing of $L$. According to GFD theory,
235: $\omega_{eff}(L)$ is a linear function of $L^{-1/2}$ at $L \to \infty$,
236: as consistent with the expansion in terms of $L^{-\omega}$ where
237: $\omega=0.5$. More data points,
238: including larger sizes $L$, are necessary for a reliable
239: estimation of the asymptotic exponent
240: $\omega =\lim_{L \to \infty} \omega_{eff}(L)$. Nevertheless, already
241: a row linear extrapolation in the scale of $L^{-1/2}$
242: with the existing data points yields the result $\omega \approx 0.547$
243: which is reasonably close to the exact value $0.5$ (horizontal dashed
244: line in Fig.~\ref{om}) found within
245: the GFD theory. The corresponding least--squares fit with circles
246: (at $L=24,16$) and cross (at $L=12$) is shown in Fig.~\ref{om} by
247: a straight solid line. It is evident from Fig.~\ref{om} that the final
248: result $\omega=0.845(10)$ (horizontal dot--dot--dashed line) reported
249: in~\cite{Hasenbusch} represents some average
250: effective exponent for the interval $L \in [6;24]$.
251: It has been claimed in~\cite{Hasenbusch} that the estimates for
252: $\omega$ (cf. Tab.~2 in~\cite{Hasenbusch}) are rather stable
253: with respect to $L_{min}$, where $L_{min}$ is the minimal lattice
254: size used in the fit. Unfortunately, the analysis
255: has been made in an obscure fashion, i.~e., giving no original
256: data, so that we cannot check the correctness of this claim.
257: Besides, the estimates in Tab.~2 of~\cite{Hasenbusch} has been made
258: by using an ansatz
259: \begin{equation} \label{omef1}
260: U(L,\lambda) = U^* + c_1(\lambda) L^{-\omega}
261: \hspace{4ex} \mbox{at} \hspace{2ex} Z_a/Z_p=0.5425 \;,
262: \end{equation}
263: which is worse than~(\ref{omef}). Namely, (\ref{omef}) and (\ref{omef1})
264: are approximations of the same order, but~(\ref{omef1})
265: contains an additional parameter $U^*$ which is not known precisely.
266: The results of an analysis with the ansatz~(\ref{omef}), reflected
267: in Tab.~5 of~\cite{Hasenbusch}, are not convincing, since
268: only very small values of $L_{min}$ (up to $L_{min}=6$) have been
269: considered.
270:
271: In any case, we prefer to rely on that information we can
272: check, and it shows that the claim
273: in~\cite{Hasenbusch} that $\omega=0.845(10)$ holds with
274: $\pm 0.01$ accuracy cannot be correct,
275: since $\omega_{eff}(L)$ is varied in the first decimal place.
276:
277: We have made a similar estimation of $\omega$ for $O(n)$--symmetric
278: spin models, namely, for the dynamically diluted $XY$ ($dd-XY$)
279: model simulated in~\cite{CHPRV} ($n=2$) and for $O(3)$--symmetric
280: $\lambda \varphi^4$ model simulated in~\cite{Has3}. In the case of
281: the $dd-XY$ model, parameter $D$ (cf.~Eq.(6) in~\cite{CHPRV})
282: plays the role of $\lambda$ in~(\ref{omef}). The data for the Binder
283: cumulant in Fig.~1 of~\cite{CHPRV} look rather accurate, i.~e., not
284: scattered. This enables us to estimate $\omega_{eff}$ just from
285: the data at $D=1.03$ and $D=\infty$ ($XY$ model).
286: The resulting values of $\omega_{eff}$
287: are depicted in Fig.~\ref{om} by solid circles. The scale of
288: $L^{-\omega}$ is used, where $\omega=5/9$ is our
289: theoretical value of the correction--to--scaling exponent at $n=2$
290: consistent with the general hypothesis proposed in~\cite{K2}.
291: As we see, the solid circles can be well located on a smooth line
292: which, however, is remarkably curved at smaller sizes. Due to the
293: latter reason, we have used only the last three points (the largest
294: sizes) for the linear fit (solid line) resulting in an
295: estimate $\omega \approx 0.573$ which comes close to our theoretical
296: value $\omega=5/9=0.555 \ldots$
297:
298: The estimates of $\omega_{eff}$ for the $O(3)$-symmetric
299: $\lambda \varphi^4$ model are depicted in Fig.~\ref{om}
300: (in the scale of $L^{-\omega}$ with our $\omega$ value $0.6$)
301: by triangles. The data have been extracted from Fig.~1
302: of~\cite{Has3} at $\lambda_1=2$ and $\lambda_2=\infty$.
303: The obtained $\omega_{eff}(L)$ values at $L=12$, $16$, and $24$
304: well lie on a straight line (tiny--dashed line in
305: Fig.~\ref{om}) yielding an asymptotic estimate $\omega \approx 0.625$
306: which is reasonably close to our theoretical prediction $\omega=0.6$.
307: Hence, the $\omega_{eff}(32)$ value deviates upwards unexpectedly.
308: We suppose, this is due to an inaccurate simulation of the largest
309: size $L=32$, as explained below. We have depicted in Fig.~\ref{r}
310: the ratio $R(L)=(U(L,2)-U^*)/(U^*-U(L,\infty))$ evaluated from
311: the data in Fig.~1 of~\cite{Has3} with $U^*=1.14022$ (the average
312: over three estimates at a fixed $Z_a/Z_p$ given in Tab.~2 in~\cite{Has3}).
313: \begin{figure}
314: \centerline{\psfig{figure=r.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
315: \vspace{-5ex}
316: \caption{\small The ratio $R(L)=(U(L,2)-U^*)/(U^*-U(L,\infty))$
317: for $O(3)$--symmetric $\lambda \varphi^4$ model estimated from
318: the MC data of~\cite{Has3}. The scale of $L^{-\omega}$ with
319: $\omega=0.6$ is used. The solid line (parabola) represents the
320: least--squares fit including only four smallest sizes.}
321: \label{r}
322: \end{figure}
323: According to~(\ref{omef1}), $R(L)$ tends to a constant at $L \to \infty$.
324: The $R(24)$ data point well lie on the smooth line (parabola) representing
325: the least--squares fit to four smallest sizes $L=6, 8, 12$, and $16$,
326: whereas the simulated $R(32)$ value drops down unreasonably.
327: So, it looks like a wrong simulation has been made at $L=32$ to
328: confirm the known RG estimate $\omega \approx 0.8$.
329: Thus, our extrapolation in Fig.~\ref{om}
330: (tiny--dashed line), omiting the point with $L=32$, is justified.
331:
332: In summary, the extrapolated $\omega$ values (Fig.~\ref{om})
333: in all three cases $n=1,2,3$ are reasonably close to our theoretical
334: values $1/2$, $5/9$, and $3/5$ indicated by arrows. Only a small
335: systematic deviation is observed. This, likely, is due to the error of
336: linear extrapolation: the $\omega_{eff}(L)$ plots have a
337: tendency to curve down slightly.
338: The conventional (RG) estimate $\omega \approx 0.8$ more or less
339: corresponds to effective exponents for currently simulated finite
340: system sizes, but not to the asymptotic exponents.
341:
342: The data for $n=4$ also are available in~\cite{Has3}. Unfortunately,
343: they are too much scattered for the actual analysis.
344:
345:
346: \section{The critical coupling of 3D Ising \\ and Heisenberg models}
347: \label{sec:crp}
348:
349: A conventional method to determine the critical exponent $\eta$
350: is a fit of the susceptibility data at criticality. For this, however,
351: we need a very accurate value of the critical coupling (temperature).
352: In this section we discuss the estimation of the critical coupling
353: $\beta_c$ for 3D Ising and Heisenberg models.
354:
355: The critical point of the standard 3D Ising model has been estimated
356: in~\cite{HV} with a $7$--digit accuracy, i.~e. $\beta_c=0.2216545$. We have
357: made our own fits with the MC data of~\cite{HV} to check the accuracy
358: of this estimation, and have obtained the same value within
359: error bars of $10^{-7}$. We will use in our further analysis also a
360: similar estimate $\beta_c=0.383245$~\cite{HV} for the so called
361: "improved" 3D Ising model.
362:
363: The critical coupling of the classical 3D Heisenberg model
364: is known much less accurately than that of the 3D Ising model.
365: Some of the known estimates are $\beta_c=0.6929(1)$~\cite{PFL},
366: $\beta_c=0.693035(37)$~\cite{CFL}, and
367: $\beta_c=0.693001(10)$~\cite{Ballesteros}.
368: %In~\cite{K2} we have made an estimation, based on the susceptibility
369: %data~\cite{Janke} above the critical point, resulting in a bit
370: %smaller $\beta_c$ value about $0.6928$. The statistical errors
371: %as well as the leading corrections to scaling have been well controlled,
372: %while the remarkable inconsistency
373: %with the results coming from more recent MC data, probably,
374: %is due to some systematical errors in the MC data of~\cite{Janke}.
375:
376: In principle, the location of the critical point can be found with
377: a high accuracy and reliability by simulations of the Binder
378: cumulant $U(\beta,L)$ in close vicinity of the critical point, as it
379: has been done in~\cite{HV} for the 3D Ising model. Taking into account
380: the leading and the subleading corrections to scaling, we have
381: \begin{equation} \label{Ubc}
382: U(\beta_c,L) \simeq U^* +a_1 L^{-\omega} +a_2 L^{-2\omega} \;.
383: \end{equation}
384: If the universal value of $U^*$ is known with a high precision,
385: then the critical value of $\beta$ at which $U(\beta,L)$ coincides
386: with~(\ref{Ubc}) is well defined. Namely, at $\beta=\beta_c$ the
387: quadratic (least--squares) extrapolation of $U(\beta,L)$ in the scale of
388: $L^{-\omega}$ should yield $U^*$ at $L^{-\omega} \to 0$.
389: In Fig.~\ref{crp}, we have shown the results of such an extrapolation
390: with $\omega=0.6$ (our theoretical value)
391: at three different values of $\beta$, i.~e., $0.6929$ (lower dashed line),
392: $0.692955$ (solid line), and $0.693$ (upper dashed line). The data for
393: $U(\beta,L)$ have been extracted from Fig.~1 in~\cite{CB} via an
394: approximation
395: $U(\beta,L) \simeq U(\beta_0,L) + 0.06 \, L^{1.4} (\beta-\beta_0)$,
396: where $\beta_0=1/1.4432$.
397: \begin{figure}
398: \centerline{\psfig{figure=t.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
399: \vspace{-5ex}
400: \caption{\small The Binder cumulant $U$ vs system size $L$ in the
401: 3D Heisenberg model at $\beta=0.6929$ (bottom), $\beta=0.692955$
402: (middle), and $\beta=0.693$ (top). Symbols depict the
403: MC data of~\cite{CB}, whereas lines represent the least--squares
404: approximations of these data by a parabola. The solid line,
405: coinciding with the universal critical value of the Binder cumulant
406: $U^*=0.61993(3)$, corresponds to
407: the critical coupling $\beta_c \simeq 0.692955$.}
408: \label{crp}
409: \end{figure}
410: Note that, in distinction to~(\ref{eq:U}),
411: now we use the conventional definition
412: $U=1- (1/3) \langle m^4 \rangle / \langle m^2 \rangle^2$.
413: A suitable estimate of $U^*$, taken from Tab.~2 in~\cite{Has3}, is then
414: $U^*=0.61993(3)$. This value with the error bars is indicated in
415: Fig.~\ref{crp} by an arrow.
416: As we see from Fig.~\ref{crp}, the estimate $\beta_c \simeq 0.692955$ is
417: consistent with this value of $U^*$. Our estimation is rather stable, i.~e.,
418: if the extrapolation is made in the scale of $L^{-0.8}$, we get
419: practically the same result $\beta_c \simeq 0.692957$. Taking into account
420: the curvature of the $U(\beta,L)$ plot at $\beta=0.693$, it is unlikely
421: that $0.693$ could be the correct value of $\beta_c$ yielding $U^*=0.61993(3)$
422: at $L \to \infty$. According to the strong variation of the extrapolated
423: $U^*$ value with $\beta$, it is plausible that the error of our estimation
424: $\beta_c \simeq 0.692955$ is about $0.00001$ or even smaller.
425:
426: Our result agree within the error bars with the value
427: $0.6929(1)$ of~\cite{PFL}, while the error bars of the estimates
428: $\beta_c=0.693035(37)$~\cite{CFL} and
429: $\beta_c=0.693001(10)$~\cite{Ballesteros}, in our opinion, are
430: underestimated. As regards the value of~\cite{CFL}, this is a result
431: of a linear extrapolation (in the scale of $L^{-1/0.7036}$) of temperature
432: values corresponding to extrema points for several physical quantities.
433: However, the shift in $\beta$ as large as $0.0001$ is practically
434: invisible in the scale of Fig.~3 in~\cite{CFL}. If one allows that
435: the lines in this figure are curved very slightly, then even larger
436: deviation in the extrapolated $\beta_c$ value is possible. In other
437: words, the proposed error bars $\pm 0.000037$, obviously, include
438: only the statistical error and are underestimated since they ignore
439: the possible systematic deviation due to the neglected corrections to scaling.
440: A similar problem with the subleading correction persists
441: in~\cite{Ballesteros}. Namely, a linear extrapolation in Fig.~\ref{crp}
442: would give a larger $\beta_c$ value, close to $0.693$ (in agreement with
443: that of~\cite{Ballesteros}), but this value is shifted down to $0.692955$
444: due to the subleading correction in the asymptotic expansion of $U$.
445: This correction has been neglected in the analysis of the
446: Binder cumulant crossings in~\cite{Ballesteros}.
447: We have taken into account both the leading and the subleading
448: corrections to scaling and, therefore, our value $0.692955$ is more
449: accurate than those proposed in~\cite{CFL} and~\cite{Ballesteros}, unless
450: the data of~\cite{CB} contain large systematical errors.
451:
452:
453: \section{Fitting the susceptibility data at criticality}
454: \label{sec:fit}
455:
456: In this section we discuss some fits of MC data at criticality.
457: According to the finite--size scaling theory, the susceptibility
458: $\chi$ near the critical point is represented by an expansion
459: \begin{equation} \label{chi}
460: \chi= L^{2-\eta} \left( g_0(L/\xi)
461: + \sum\limits_{l \ge 1} L^{-\omega_l} g_l(L/\xi) \right) \;,
462: \end{equation}
463: where $g_l(L/\xi)$ are the scaling functions, $\xi$ is the correlation
464: length of an infinite system, $\eta$ is the critical exponent
465: related to the $k^{-2+\eta}$ divergence of the correlation function
466: in the wave vector space at criticality, and $\omega_l$ are
467: correction--to--scaling exponents, $\omega_1 \equiv \omega$
468: being the leading correction exponent. The correlation length
469: diverges like $\xi \propto t^{-\nu}$ at $t \to 0$, where
470: $t=1-\beta/\beta_c$ is the reduced temperature. Thus,
471: for large $L$, in close vicinity of the critical point
472: where $tL^{1/\nu} \ll 1$ holds Eq.~(\ref{chi}) can be
473: written as
474: \begin{equation} \label{chi1}
475: \chi= a \, L^{2-\eta} \left( 1 + \sum\limits_{l \ge 1} b_l
476: L^{-\omega_l} + \delta(t,L) \right) \;,
477: \end{equation}
478: where $a=g_0(0)$ and $b_l=g_l(0)/g_0(0)$ are the amplitudes, and
479: $\delta(t,L)$ is a correction term which takes into account the
480: deviation from criticality. In the first approximation it reads
481: \begin{equation} \label{delta}
482: \delta(t,L) \simeq c \cdot tL^{1/\nu} \;,
483: \end{equation}
484: where $c$ is a constant.
485:
486: We start our analysis with the standard 3D Ising model with the Hamiltonian
487: \begin{equation}
488: H/T= -\beta \sum\limits_{\langle i j \rangle} \sigma_i \sigma_j \;.
489: \end{equation}
490: The critical point of this model with a 7--digit accuracy is
491: $\beta_c \simeq 0.2216545$ (Sec.~\ref{sec:crp}).
492: From the maximal values of the derivative
493: $\partial \ln \langle m^2 \rangle / \partial \beta \equiv
494: \partial \ln \chi / \partial \beta$ evaluated in~\cite{FL} we conclude
495: that the shift of $\beta$ by $10^{-7}$ produces
496: the variation of $\ln \chi$ at $L=96$ near
497: $\beta=\beta_c$, which does not exceed $4.7 \cdot 10^{-4}$ in magnitude.
498: The latter means that, with a good enough accuracy, we may assume
499: that $\beta_c$ is just $0.2216545$ when fitting the susceptibility
500: data at criticality within $L \in [4;128]$. Here we mean the MC data
501: given in Tab.~25 of~\cite{HV}.
502: We have made and compared several fits of these data to
503: ansatz~(\ref{chi1}) with $\delta(t,L)=0$
504: (more precisely, to the corresponding formula
505: for $\ln \chi$) for two different sets of the critical
506: exponents, i.~e., our (GFD) and that proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
507: The fits made with our exponents systematically
508: improve relative to those made with the exponents of~\cite{Hasenbusch},
509: as the system sizes grow and the approximation order increases.
510: The necessity to include several correction terms is dictated
511: by the fact that corrections to scaling are rather strong.
512: According to the least--squares criterion, the fit with our exponents
513: $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega_l=l/2$ becomes better than that provided
514: by the more conventional exponents $\eta=0.0358(4)$, $\omega_1=0.845(1)$,
515: $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$, and $\omega_3=2$~\cite{Hasenbusch} starting with
516: $L_{min}=28$ (i.~e., $L \in [L_{min};128]$), if two correction terms
517: ($l=1,2$) are included.
518: In the case of three correction terms it occurs already at $L_{min}=11$.
519: The four--parameter ($a$, $b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$) fits to MC data (empty
520: circles) within $L \in [14;128]$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{chifi}.
521: \begin{figure}
522: \centerline{\psfig{figure=i.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
523: \vspace{-5ex}
524: \caption{\small The fits of $\ln \left( \chi/L^2 \right)$ data
525: at criticality (ansatz~(\ref{chi1})) shifted by a constant $c$.
526: Circles represent the MC data for 3D Ising model~\cite{HV} at
527: $\beta=0.2216545$ ($c=0$, empty symbols) and 3D Heisenberg
528: model~\cite{Janke} at $\beta=0.692955$ ($c=0.55$, solid symbols).
529: The corresponding fits with our (GFD) exponents
530: ($\ln a=1.065289, b_1=-2.72056, b_2=8.18636, b_3=-10.49614$
531: and $\ln a=0.207324, b_1=-1.22546, b_2=1.85823$) are shown
532: by solid lines, whereas those with the exponents
533: of~\cite{Hasenbusch,Justin1}
534: ($\ln a=0.430933, b_1=0.05850, b_2=-7.74767, b_3=12.42890$ and
535: $\ln a=-0.150242, b_1=0.03947, b_2=-0.45033$) -- by
536: tiny--dashed lines.
537: The empty boxes are MC data for 3--component 3D $XY$ model~\cite{NhM},
538: shifted by $c=0.85$.}
539: \label{chifi}
540: \end{figure}
541: The fit with our exponents (upper solid line) is relatively better at
542: larger sizes. However, both fits (upper solid and dashed lines) look,
543: in fact, quite similar, so that we cannot make unambiguous conclusions
544: herefrom.
545:
546: We have shown in Fig.~\ref{chifi} also the three--parameter fits to
547: the susceptibility
548: data of the 3D Heisenberg model at $\beta=\beta_c \simeq 0.692955$
549: (Sec.~\ref{sec:crp}) extracted from Fig.~6 in~\cite{Janke} by
550: a suitable linear interpolation. The MC data within $L \in [12;48]$
551: are shown by solid circles. The fit with our exponents
552: ($\eta=0.1$, $\omega_l= 0.6 \, l$)
553: is depicted by lower solid line, whereas that with the conventional
554: RG exponents ($\eta=0.0355$, $\omega=0.782$~\cite{Justin1}) -- by
555: lower tiny--dashed line. Like in the case of 3D Ising model, the fit
556: with our exponents looks slightly better, although the MC data
557: are too inaccurate to make serious conclusions herefrom.
558: Comparing the amplitudes given in the caption of Fig.~\ref{chifi},
559: we see that corrections to scaling are remarkably weaker in
560: the 3D Heisenberg model as compared to the 3D Ising model, so that
561: the neglected third--order correction in the case of the Heisenberg model
562: could be small enough even at sizes somewhat below $L=12$.
563: In this aspect, it is interesting to mention that the fit with
564: our exponents $\eta=0.1$ and $\omega_l= 0.6 \, l$ (and not the other one)
565: qualitatively correctly reproduces the shape of the actual
566: $\ln \left( \chi/L^2 \right)$ plot at $L<12$ where it curves upwards
567: to meet the condition $\chi(L=1)= \langle \sigma^2 \rangle =1$.
568:
569: For comparison, we have shown in Fig.~\ref{chifi} also the MC data
570: for 3D $XY$ model~\cite{NhM} in which, however, only $x$ and $y$ components
571: of the 3--component order parameter interact with each other. One
572: believes~\cite{NhM} that this model belongs to the universality class of
573: the standard $XY$ model with the number of components $n=2$. Unfortunately,
574: we have not found in the recent literature more accurate explicit data
575: for $n=2$ case. As we see, the actual MC data (empty boxes) at
576: $\beta_c$ evaluated approximately $\beta_c \simeq 0.6444$~\cite{NhM} are
577: rather scattered and, therefore, unsuitable for a refined analysis.
578: Nevertheless, this is a typical situation where authors of such data make
579: a very "accurate" and "convincing" estimation $\gamma/\nu=1.9696(37)$
580: or $\eta=0.0304(37)$ making a simple linear fit. However, the refined
581: analysis given above has shown that even in the case of 3D Ising model,
582: where the data are incompatibly more accurate, it is not so easy to
583: distinguish between $\eta=0.0358$ and $\eta=1/8$. Moreover, a refined
584: analysis prefer the second value which is much larger than those
585: usually provided by linear fits at typical system syzes $L \le 48$.
586: This is particularly well seen in Fig.~\ref{eteff}, where
587: the effective critical exponent $\eta_{eff}(L)$ of the
588: 3D Ising model, estimated via the linear fit within $[L;2L]$, is depicted
589: by solid circles.
590: \begin{figure}
591: \centerline{\psfig{figure=e.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
592: \vspace{-5ex}
593: \caption{\small The effective critical exponent $\eta_{eff}(L)$ (solid
594: circles) obtained by fitting the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model
595: at criticality ($\beta=0.2216545$)~\cite{HV} within the interval $[L;2L]$.
596: The least--squares approximations obtained by fitting the $\eta_{eff}(L)$
597: data within $[L_{min};64]$ to a third--order polinomial in $L^{-1/2}$ are
598: shown by dashed ($L_{min}=9$), solid ($L_{min}=10$), and tiny--dashed
599: ($L_{min}=12$) lines. The asymptotic value $\eta=1/8$ of the GFD
600: theory is indicated by a horizontal dashed line. The dot--dot--dashed
601: line represents the $\eta$ value $0.0358$ proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.}
602: \label{eteff}
603: \end{figure}
604: As we see, $\eta_{eff}(L)$ tends to increase well above
605: the conventional value $0.0358$ (horizontal dot--dot--dashed line).
606: The shape of the $\eta_{eff}(L)$ plot is satisfactory well reproduced
607: by a third--order polinomial in the actual scale of $L^{-1/2}$.
608: Three such kind of least--squares approximations
609: (at $L_{min}=9,10,12$) are shown in Fig.~\ref{eteff}.
610: These fits do not provide very accurate
611: and stable asymptotic values of $\eta$. Nevertheless, they are
612: more or less in agreement with our theoretical prediction
613: $\eta=1/8$ (horizontal dashed line). Besides, the values of $\eta_{eff}$
614: are affected by the error in $\beta_c$ (about $10^{-7}$) only slightly,
615: i.~e., by an amount not exceeding $0.001$.
616:
617:
618: \section{A test for 3D Ising model with "improved" action}
619: \label{imp}
620:
621: Here we discuss some estimations of the critical exponents
622: from the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model, reported in~\cite{HV},
623: with the so called "improved" action (i.~e., $H/T$).
624: One of the problems with the standard 3D Ising model is that corrections
625: to scaling are strong. It has been proposed in~\cite{HV} to solve
626: this problem by considering a modified (spin--1) Ising model
627: with the Hamiltonian
628: \begin{equation} \label{Hsp1}
629: H/T= - \beta \sum\limits_{\langle i j \rangle}
630: \sigma_i \sigma_j + D \sum\limits_{i} \sigma_i^2 \;,
631: \end{equation}
632: where the spin $\sigma_i$ takes the values $0, \pm 1$,
633: with two coupling constants $\beta$ and $D$ adjusted in such a way that
634: the leading correction to
635: finite--size scaling vanishes for all relevant physical quantities
636: (magnetization cumulant, energy per site, susceptibility, etc.) and their
637: derivatives. Moreover, according to the claims in~\cite{HV}
638: (see the conclusions in~\cite{HV}), the ratios of
639: the leading and subleading corrections are universal, so that not only
640: the leading but all (!) corrections should vanish simultaneously.
641:
642: We have checked the correctness of these claims as described below.
643: We have fitted the corresponding to~(\ref{chi1}) expression for
644: $\ln \chi$ to the susceptibility data of the "improved" 3D Ising
645: model~(\ref{Hsp1}) with $(\beta,D)=(0.383245, 0.624235)$
646: (this is an approximation of the critical point) given
647: in~\cite{HV} (Tab.~26). By fixing the exponents, the least--squares
648: fit within $L \in [L_{min};56]$ (here $L=56$ is the maximal size
649: available in Tab.~26 of~\cite{HV}), including the leading and the
650: subleading correction to scaling, provides the effective amplitudes
651: $a$, $b_1$, and $b_2$ depending on $L_{min}$.
652: We have made a test with the critical exponents $\eta=0.0358(4)$,
653: $\omega=0.845(10)$, and $\nu=0.6296(3)$ proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
654: These values are close to those of the usual RG expansions~\cite{Justin1},
655: but, as claimed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}, they are more accurate.
656: According to~\cite{Hasenbusch}, the asymptotic expansion contains corrections
657: like $L^{-n \omega}$ and $L^{-2n}$, where $n=1, 2, 3, \ldots$
658: Thus we have $\omega_1=\omega$ and $\omega_2=2 \omega$.
659: The resulting amplitudes $10 b_1(L_{min})$ and $b_2(L_{min})$
660: are shown in Fig.~\ref{b} by circles and rhombs, respectively.
661: \begin{figure}
662: \centerline{\psfig{figure=b.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
663: \vspace{-5ex}
664: \caption{\small The effective amplitudes $10 b_1$ (circles) and
665: $b_2$ (rhombs) in~(\ref{chi1}) estimated at fixed exponents
666: $\eta=0.0358$, $\omega_1=0.845$, $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$, and
667: $\nu=0.6296$ by fitting the MC data within $L \in [L_{min};56]$.
668: Filled symbols correspond to $\delta(t,L)=0$, empty
669: symbols -- to $\delta(t,L)=10^{-6} L^{1/\nu}$. The effective
670: amplitudes $b_1$ and $b_2$ estimated with the critical
671: exponents of our GFD theory ($\eta=1/8$, $\omega_l=l/2$) at
672: $\delta(t,L)=0$ are shown by "x" and "+", respectively.
673: Lines represent the least--squares approximations by a fourth--order
674: polinomial in $L$.}
675: \label{b}
676: \end{figure}
677: We have depicted by filled symbols
678: the results of the fitting with $\delta(t,L)=0$, assuming that the
679: critical coupling $\beta_c=0.383245$ has been estimated in~\cite{Hasenbusch}
680: with a high enough (6 digit) accuracy. The data points quite
681: well fit smooth (tiny dashed) lines within $L_{min} \in [4;20]$, which
682: means that the statistical errors are reasonably small.
683: If the exponents used in the fit are correct and corrections to
684: scaling are small indeed, then the convergence of the effective amplitudes
685: to some small values is expected with increasing of $L_{min}$.
686: However, as we see from Fig.~\ref{b}, the effective amplitudes tend
687: to increase in magnitude acceleratedly as $L_{min}$ exceeds $14$.
688: A small inaccuracy in $\beta_c$ value can be compensated by
689: the term $\delta(t,L) \simeq c^* L^{1/\nu}$ in~(\ref{chi1}),
690: where $c^*=ct$ (cf.~Eq.~(\ref{delta})). The results of fitting with
691: $c^*=10^{-6}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{b} by empty symbols. As we see,
692: the expected inaccuracy in $\beta_c$ of order $10^{-6}$ does not
693: change the qualitative picture. The increase of the effective
694: amplitudes indicates that either the exponents are false, or
695: the asymptotic amplitudes are not small (or both). This is our
696: argument that the claims in~\cite{HV} about very
697: accurate critical exponents, extracted from the 3D Ising model
698: with "improved" action, are incorrect.
699:
700: For comparison, we have shown in Fig.~\ref{b} also the
701: effective amplitudes $b_1(L_{min})$ and $b_2(L_{min})$
702: (by "x" and "+", respectively) estimated with the critical exponents of
703: our GFD theory~\cite{K1,K2} ($\eta=1/8$, $\omega_l=l/2$), assuming
704: $\delta(t,L)=0$.
705: The effective amplitudes converge to some values with increasing of
706: $L_{min}$. These, however, are not the true asymptotic values, since
707: the maximal size of the system has been eliminated to $L=56$.
708:
709:
710: \section{A test for the standard 3D Ising model}
711: \label{stan}
712:
713: A test with the effective amplitudes, as in Sec.~\ref{imp},
714: appears to be more sensitive tool as compared to the fits discussed
715: in Sec.~\ref{sec:fit}. Since more data points are available for the standard
716: Ising model, we can make even better test than that in Sec.~\ref{imp}.
717: We have fitted all data points in Tab.~25 of~\cite{HV}
718: within the interval $[L;8L]$ to the theoretical expression
719: for $\ln \chi$ (consistent with~(\ref{chi1}))
720: to evaluate the effective amplitudes $a$ and $b_l$ with $l=1, 2, 3$
721: depending on $L$. Exceptionally in the case if all the
722: involved exponents are correct (exact) each effective amplitude can converge
723: to a certain nonzero asymptotic value at $L \to \infty$. In other words,
724: if one tries to compensate the inconsistency in the exponent by
725: choosing appropriate amplitude, then the amplitude
726: tends either to zero or infinity at $L \to \infty$.
727:
728: We have shown in Fig.~\ref{m} the effective amplitudes $\ln a(L)$ and
729: $b_l(L)$ in the case of our critical exponents $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega_l=l/2$.
730: \begin{figure}
731: \centerline{\psfig{figure=m.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
732: \vspace{-5ex}
733: \caption{\small The effective amplitudes in Eq.~(\ref{chi1})
734: $100 \, (\ln a(L) -1)$ (triangles), $5 b_1(L)$ (circles), $b_2(L)$ (squares),
735: and $b_3(L)$ (rhombs)
736: evaluated by fitting the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model at
737: criticality within the interval of sizes $[L;8L]$ with the critical
738: exponents $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega_l=l/2$ of the GFD theory.
739: %The tiny--dashed lines are guides to eye.
740: }
741: \label{m}
742: \end{figure}
743: As we expected, the effective amplitudes
744: converge to some nonzero values with increasing of $L$.
745: This is a good numerical evidence that our critical exponets are true.
746: The case with the exponents of~\cite{Hasenbusch} $\eta=0.0358(4)$,
747: $\omega_1=0.845(10)$, $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$, and $\omega_3=2$
748: is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{v}.
749: \begin{figure}
750: \centerline{\psfig{figure=v.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
751: \vspace{-5ex}
752: \caption{\small The effective amplitudes in Eq.~(\ref{chi1})
753: evaluated by fitting the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model at
754: criticality within the interval of sizes $[L;8L]$ with the critical
755: exponents $\eta=0.0358$, $\omega_1=0.845$, $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$,
756: and $\omega_3=2$ proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
757: Solid symbols show the four--parameter fit:
758: $50 b_1(L)$ (circles), $b_2(L)$ (squares), and $b_3(L)$ (rhombs);
759: empty symbols show the three--parameter fit: $100 b_1(L)$ (circles) and
760: $27 b_2(L)$ (squares); crosses represent
761: the amplitude of the two--parameter fit, i.~e., quantity
762: $190 \, (b_l(L)+0.34)$.
763: %The tiny--dashed lines are guides to eye.
764: }
765: \label{v}
766: \end{figure}
767: As we expected, the effective amplitudes of our four--parameter fit
768: (solid symbols) tend to diverge with increasing of $L$,
769: which shows that this set of critical exponents is false.
770: One could object that, probably, the instability of the effective
771: amplitudes is due to small errors in MC data. However,
772: the amplitudes $b_1(L)$ and $b_2(L)$ of the more stable three--parameter
773: fit ($l=1,2$ in~(\ref{chi1})) behave in a similar way (see empty symbols in
774: Fig.~\ref{v}). Moreover, the amplitude $b_1(L)$ of the two--parameter fit,
775: shown by crosses, increases almost
776: linearly at large enough $L$ instead of the expected (in a case
777: of correct exponents) saturation like
778: $b_1(L) \simeq b_1 + const \cdot L^{-\omega}$.
779: As regards the convergence in Fig.~\ref{m} of the effective amplitudes
780: at $L \to \infty$, it is possible only if both conditions
781: are fulfilled, i.~e., the exponents are correct and the MC data
782: are accurate enough to ensure stable results. Thus, in any case,
783: the analysis in Fig.~\ref{m} provides rather convincing evidence
784: that our exponents are the true ones, which by itself rules
785: out the possibility that those proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}
786: could be correct.
787: The results in Figs.~\ref{m} and~\ref{v} are affected insignificantly
788: by a small inaccuracy of about $10^{-7}$ in the estimated $\beta_c$ value.
789:
790:
791: \section{Some remarks about other numerical results}
792:
793: There exists a large number of numerical results in the published
794: literature not discussed here and in our previous papers~\cite{K1,K2}.
795: A detailed review of these results is given in~\cite{PV}.
796: The cited there papers report results which disagree with
797: the values of the critical exponents we have proposed.
798: However, as regards the pure Monte Carlo study, we are quite confident
799: that, just like in the actually discussed case of 3D Ising model,
800: the increase of system syzes and/or use of higher--level
801: approximations will lead to the conclusion that fits with our
802: exponents are better than those with the conventional (RG) exponents.
803: Particularly, a careful analysis of the effective exponents made
804: in Sec.~\ref{sec:omega} and~\ref{sec:fit}, as well as in Sec.~6
805: of~\cite{K2} already has shown that the effective exponents deviate from
806: the values predicted by the perturbative RG theory and converge
807: more or less to those of the GFD theory at $L \to \infty$.
808: Together with the analysis of the experiment with superfluid
809: $^4 He$~\cite{K1}, we have presented totally $6$ independent evidences of
810: such a behavior.
811:
812: %We allow that in most of the cases the MC analysis is formally correct on
813: %the actual level of approximation used there. At the same time
814: %all these results can apper to be erroneous due to neglected or
815: %underestimated finite--size effects on the obtained values of the
816: %critical exponents.
817:
818: Formally, the finite--size effects on the obtained values of the
819: critical exponents has been taken into account in many of cases
820: considered in literature.
821: However, the estimated effect strongly depends on that which kind of
822: corrections to scaling is expected and included in the analysis.
823: All the existing analysis (not counting our works), of course, are based on
824: the assumption that the critical behavior of all physical quantities
825: is characterised by the same correction exponent $\omega$ which is
826: about $0.8$ for $O(n)$--symmetric models with $n=1,2,3,4$. However, it is
827: evident from the behavior of the partition function zeros of
828: 3D Ising model~\cite{K2} that
829: $\omega$ cannot have so large value. Namely, the value of $(1/\nu)+\omega$
830: should be about $2$ or even smaller, otherwise we arrive to a rather strong
831: and obvious contradiction with the MC data for the real part of the partition
832: function zeros~\cite{K2}. The current analysis in Sec.~\ref{sec:omega}
833: provides $3$ independent evidences (for $n=1,2,3$) that the correction
834: exponent for the magnetization cumulant is remarkably smaller than $0.8$.
835: The numerical analysis often suggests that $\omega \approx 1$. This fact
836: is perfectly explained by our
837: theoretical concept: in some cases the amplitude of the leading correction
838: term can be small as compared to that of the subleading term
839: providing the effective correction exponent just about $1$.
840: The value of $\omega$ is crucial for an accurate correction--to--scaling
841: analysis. If, e.~g., we would assume that $\omega=0.845$, then we could
842: not arrive to a conclusion that $\eta =1/8$ is a better choice for the
843: 3D Ising model than $\eta=0.0358(4)$, since all fits with $\eta=1/8$ and
844: $\omega=0.845$ look relatively bad.
845: This explains the fact that the usual estimations do not give
846: $\eta \approx 1/8$, while this is just the correct value.
847: We suppose that similar problems could arise also in other cases,
848: particularly, if one uses some expression for the correlation length
849: in finite system (like in~\cite{Ballesteros}), as it has been
850: discussed in~\cite{K2}.
851:
852: We should not forget also about purely subjective factor that any
853: signals about essential inconsistency between MC data and RG predictions
854: usually are suppressed, i.~e., they do not apper in the published
855: literature. There are no doubts that such signals exist which can
856: be mentioned even very easily, e.~g., the behavior of the effective
857: critical exponents $\omega_{eff}$ discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:omega},
858: or those evidences in~\cite{K1} which appear as a result
859: of unsophisticated analysis of MC data. As a result of
860: an uncritical acceptance of anything which claims to
861: confirm with a great accuracy the conventional (RG) values of
862: the critical exponents and rejection of any contraarguments, the
863: objective picture is distorted.
864: This is the reason why almost all the published and reviewed
865: papers usually claim to confirm with an almost unbelievable
866: accuracy the predictions of the perturbative RG theory.
867: It is impossible to check in detail all these papers, but
868: our critical analysis in~\cite{K1}, \cite{K2}, and here indicates
869: that many of them are, at least, inobjective.
870:
871: There exists some background for the conventional claims in the published
872: literature that all the usual methods give consistent results which appear
873: to be in a good agreement with the predictions of the perturbative
874: RG theory. The perturbation expansions of the RG theory, as well
875: as the techniques of high-- and low--temperature series expansion are
876: merely not rigorous extrapolation schemes which work not too close to
877: criticality.
878: As a result, these methods produce some pseudo or effective critical
879: exponents which, however, often provide a good approximation
880: just for the range of temperatures not too close to $T_c$ (critical
881: temperature) where these methods make sense and, therefore, agree with
882: each other.
883: According to the finite--size scaling theory, $t L^{1/\nu}$
884: is a relevant scaling argument, so that not too small values of the
885: reduced temperature $t$
886: are related to not too large sizes $L \sim t^{-\nu}$. Therefore, one
887: can understand that the MC results for finite systems
888: often can be well matched to the conventional critical exponents
889: proposed by high temperature (HT) and RG expansions.
890: %(Due to the subjective factor mentioned above, "often" is reflected
891: %as "always" in the review~\cite{PV}.)
892: If, however, the level
893: of MC analysis (i.~e., the level of approximations used) is increased,
894: then it turns out that the "conventional" critical exponents are
895: not valid anymore, as it has been demonstrated in the current paper
896: and in~\cite{K2}. It is because the "conventional" exponents are not
897: the asymptotic exponents. Correct values of the asymptotic exponents
898: have been found in~\cite{K1} considering suitable theoretical limits
899: instead of formal expansions in terms of $\ln k$ (at criticality, where
900: $k$ is the wave vector magnitude) or $\ln t$ (approaching criticality)
901: which are meaningless at $k \to 0$ and $t \to 0$.
902: These formal expansions lie in the basis of the RG expansions for
903: the critical exponents. The founders and defenders of the perturbative
904: RG theory, of course, will try to doubt our statement that the
905: perturbative RG method is invalid at criticality. But it is impossible
906: to doubt a mathematical proof. It has been proven in~\cite{K1} that
907: the assumption that the $\epsilon$--expansion works and provides
908: correct results at $k \to 0$ leads to an obvious contradiction in
909: mathematics (cf.~Sec.~2 in~\cite{K1}). This fact alone cannot be
910: compensated even by an infinite number of numerical evidences
911: supporting the "conventional" critical exponents coming from the
912: RG expansions.
913:
914: Our argument, based on the current numerical analysis, is the
915: following. We have proposed here a very sensitive method
916: (i.~e., a study of effective amplitudes) which allows to test the consistency of a given set of
917: critical exponents with the MC data including several (in our case up to $3$)
918: corrections to scaling. We have applied this method to one of the recent
919: and most accurate numerical data for the susceptibility in
920: 3D Ising model, and have got a confirmation that our critical
921: exponents are true. It would be not correct to doubt our results based on
922: less sensitive methods and lower--level approximations.
923:
924: We prefer to rely just on the data of pure MC simulations becose of the
925: following reasons. The so called Monte Carlo RG (MCRG) method is not
926: free of assumptions related to approximate renormalization.
927: We would like only to mention that the MCRG study in~\cite{GT} of 3D Ising
928: systems of the largest (to our knowledge) available in
929: literature sizes, i.~e. up to $L=256$,
930: has not revealed an excellent agreement with the usual predictions of
931: the perturbative RG. In particular, an estimate $\omega \approx 0.7$
932: has been obtained~\cite{GT} which is smaller than the usual (perturbative)
933: RG value $\approx 0.8$, but still is larger than the exact value $0.5$
934: predicted by the GFD theory.
935: The high--temperature series cannot give more
936: precise results than those extracted from the recent most accurate MC
937: data, including the actual data of~\cite{HV}, since these series
938: diverge approaching the critical point. One approximates the divergent
939: series by a ratio of two divergent series (Pade approximation),
940: but it is never proven that such a method converges to the exact result.
941: It is interesting to compare the MC and HT estimates of the
942: critical point for the standard 3D Ising model, i.~e.,
943: $\beta_c \simeq 0.2216545$ (MC)~\cite{HV} and
944: $\beta_c = 0.221659 +0.000002/-0.000005$ (HT)~\cite{SA}.
945: It is clear that the MC value is more accurate:
946: if we look in~\cite{HV}, where the estimation procedure is
947: well illustrated, we can see that $\beta_c$ is definitely
948: smaller than $0.221659$, and the error seems to be much
949: smaller than the difference between both estimates $0.0000045$.
950: As we have mentioned already, our independent tests suggest
951: that the error of the actual MC value is about $10^{-7}$.
952:
953: \newpage
954:
955: \section{Conclusions}
956:
957: In summary of the present work, we conclude the following.
958: \begin{enumerate}
959: \item
960: The leading correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$
961: in $O(n)$--symmetric models on a three--dimensional
962: lattice has been tested by analysing the recent Monte Carlo (MC) data.
963: These tests have shown the incorrectness of some claims that
964: $\omega$ has a very accurate value $0.845(10)$ at $n=1$.
965: A selfconsistent infinite volume extrapolation yields
966: row estimates $\omega \approx 0.547$, $\omega \approx 0.573$, and
967: $\omega \approx 0.625$ at $n=1$, $2$, and $3$, respectively, in approximate
968: agreement with the corresponding exact values $1/2$, $5/9$, and $3/5$
969: predicted by our recently developed GFD theory.
970: \item
971: Considering the susceptibility data for 3D Ising model at
972: criticality~(Sec.~\ref{sec:fit}), we conclude that the fits made with
973: our (GFD) critical exponents systematically
974: improve relative to those made with the exponents given in~\cite{Hasenbusch},
975: as the system sizes grow and the approximation order increases.
976: \item
977: The numerical analysis of the effective critical exponents
978: in Sec.~\ref{sec:omega} and~\ref{sec:fit}, as well as in Sec.~6
979: of~\cite{K2} has shown that the effective critical exponents deviate from
980: the values predicted by the perturbative RG theory and converge
981: towards those of the GFD theory at $L \to \infty$.
982: The same behavior has been observed in the experiment with
983: superfluid $^4 He$ discussed in~\cite{K1}. Totally, these are
984: $6$ independent evidences of such a behavior, suggesting that the
985: above examples are not occasional or exceptional,
986: but reflect a general rule.
987: \item
988: Different sets of critical exponents (one provided by GFD theory, another
989: proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}) predicted for the 3D Ising model
990: have been tested by analysing the effective amplitudes
991: (Sec.~\ref{imp} and~\ref{stan}).
992: While the usual fits of the susceptibility data do not allow to show
993: convincingly which of the discussed here sets of the critical exponents
994: is better, this method clearly demonstrates that the conventional
995: critical exponents $\eta=0.0358(4)$ and $\omega=0.845(10)$~\cite{Hasenbusch}
996: are false, whereas our (GFD) values $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega=1/2$ are true.
997: \end{enumerate}
998:
999: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1000:
1001: \bibitem{Onsager} L.~Onsager, Phys.~Rev. {\bf 65} (1944) 117
1002: \bibitem{Baxter} Rodney J.~Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in
1003: Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press, London, 1989
1004: \bibitem{K1} J.~Kaupu\v{z}s, Ann.~Phys.~(Leipzig) {\bf 10} (2001)
1005: 299 (preprint cond--mat/0104183)
1006: \bibitem{IS} N. Ito, M. Suzuki, Progress of Theoretical
1007: Physics, {\bf 77} (1987) 1391
1008: \bibitem{SM} N. Schultka, E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. B
1009: {\bf 52} (1995) 7258
1010: \bibitem{GA} L. S. Goldner, G. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. B
1011: {\bf 45} (1992) 13129
1012: \bibitem{K2} J.~Kaupu\v{z}s, e--print cond--mat/0101156
1013: \bibitem{ADH} N. A. Alves, J. R. Drugowich, U. H. E. Hansmann,
1014: J.~Phys.~A {\bf 33} (2000) 7489
1015: \bibitem{Janke} C. Holm, W. Janke, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 48} (1993) 936
1016: \bibitem{Wilson} K.G.~Wilson, M.E.~Fisher,
1017: Phys.Rev.Lett. {\bf 28} (1972) 240
1018: \bibitem{Ma} Shang--Keng Ma, Modern Theory of Critical
1019: Phenomena, W.A.~Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1976
1020: \bibitem{Justin} J.~Zinn--Justin, Quantum Field Theory and
1021: Critical Phenomena, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996
1022: \bibitem{Hasenbusch} M.~Hasenbusch, J.~Phys.~A {\bf 32}
1023: (1999) 4851
1024: \bibitem{CHPRV} E.~Campostrini, M.~Hasenbusch, A.~Pelissetto,
1025: P.~Rossi, E.~Vicary, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 63} (2001) 214503
1026: (preprint cond--mat/0010360 (2000))
1027: \bibitem{Has3} M.~Hasenbusch, e--print cond--mat/0010463 (28 Oct. 2000)
1028: \bibitem{HV} M.~Hasenbusch, K.~Pinn, S.~Vinti,
1029: Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 59} (1999) 11\,471
1030: \bibitem{PFL} P.~Peczak, A. M.~Ferrenberg, D. P.~Landau,
1031: Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 43} (1991) 6087
1032: \bibitem{CFL} K.~Chen, A. M.~Ferrenberg, D. P.~Landau,
1033: Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 48} (1993) 3249
1034: \bibitem{Ballesteros} H. G. Ballesteros, L. A. Fernandez,
1035: V. Martin--Mayor, A. M. Sudupe, Phys. Lett.~B {\bf 387} (1996) 125
1036: \bibitem{CB} R. G.~Brown, M.~Ciftan, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 76}
1037: (1996) 1352
1038: %\bibitem{CB1}
1039: %\bibitem{Jcom}
1040: \bibitem{Justin1} R.~Guida, J.~Zinn--Justin, J.~Phys.~A
1041: {\bf 31} (1998) 8103
1042: \bibitem{NhM} K.~Nho, E.~Manousakis, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 59}
1043: (1999) 11575
1044: \bibitem{FL} A. M. Ferrenberg, D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev.~B
1045: {\bf 44} (1991) 5081
1046: \bibitem{PV} A. Pinossetti, E. Vicari, e--print cond--mat/0012164
1047: \bibitem{SA} Z. Salman, J. Adler, Int. J. Modern Physics~C
1048: {\bf 9} (1998) 195
1049: \bibitem{GT} R. Gupta, P. Tamayo, Int. J. Mod. Phys.~C {\bf 7}
1050: (1996) 305
1051: %
1052: %\bibitem{Binder} K. Binder, Z. Phys.~B {\bf 43} (1981) 119
1053: %\bibitem{NW} M. J. P. Nijmeijer, J. J. Weis, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1054: %{\bf 75} (1995) 2887
1055: %\bibitem{St} N. St\"usser, M. Th. Rekveldt, T. Spruijt,
1056: %Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 33} (1986) 6423
1057: %\bibitem{Brout} R. Brout, Phase transitions, New York, 1965
1058: %\bibitem{ABV} N. A. Alves, B. A. Berg, R. Villanova, Phys. Rev.~B
1059: %{\bf 41} (1990) 383
1060: \end{thebibliography}
1061:
1062: \end{document}
1063:
1064: