1: \documentclass[11pt]{article}
2: \input{psfig.sty}
3: \topmargin0cm
4: \textwidth14cm
5: \textheight22.6cm
6: \oddsidemargin1cm
7: \evensidemargin1cm
8: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
9: \begin{document}
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11:
12: \title{
13: \textbf{Transfer matrix and Monte Carlo tests of critical exponents
14: in 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: The corrections to finite-size scaling in the critical two-point correlation
28: function $G(r)$ of 2D Ising model on a square
29: lattice have been studied numerically by means of exact transfer--matrix
30: algorithms. The systems of square geometry with periodic boundaries oriented
31: either along $\langle 10 \rangle$ or along $\langle 11 \rangle$ direction
32: have been considered, including up to 800 spins. The calculation of $G(r)$
33: at a distance $r$ equal to
34: the half of the system size $L$ shows the existence of an amplitude
35: correction $\propto L^{-2}$. A nontrivial correction $\propto L^{-0.25}$
36: of a very small magnitude also has been detected in agreement with
37: predictions of our recently developed GFD (grouping of Feynman diagrams)
38: theory. A refined analysis of the recent MC data for 3D Ising, $\varphi^4$,
39: and XY lattice models has been performed.
40: It includes an analysis of the partition function zeros of 3D Ising model,
41: an estimation of the correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$ from the
42: Binder cumulant data near criticality,
43: as well as a study of the effective critical exponent $\eta$ and the
44: effective amplitudes in the asymptotic expansion of susceptibility at
45: the critical point. In all cases a refined analysis
46: is consistent with our (GFD) asymptotic values of the critical exponents
47: ($\nu=2/3$, $\omega=1/2$, $\eta=1/8$ for 3D Ising model and
48: $\omega=5/9$ for 3D XY model), while the actually accepted
49: "conventional" exponents are, in fact, effective exponents which are
50: valid for approximation of the finite--size scaling behavior of not too
51: large systems.
52: \end{abstract}
53:
54: {\bf Keywords}: Transfer matrix, Ising model, XY model, $\varphi^4$ model,
55: critical exponents, finite--size scaling, Monte Carlo simulation
56:
57: \vspace*{1ex}
58:
59: {\bf Pacs:} 64.60.Cn, 68.18.Jk, 05.10.-a
60:
61:
62: \section{Introduction}
63:
64: Since the exact solution of two--dimensional Ising model has
65: been found by Onsager~\cite{Onsager}, a study of various phase
66: transition models is of permanent interest. Nowadays, phase
67: transitions and critical phenomena is one of the most widely
68: investigated fields of physics~\cite{Sornette,BDT}.
69: Remarkable progress has been
70: reached in exact solution of two--dimensional models~\cite{Baxter}.
71: Recently, we have proposed~\cite{K1} a novel method based on
72: grouping of Feynman diagrams (GFD) in $\varphi^4$ model.
73: Our GFD theory allows to analyze the asymptotic solution
74: for the two--point correlation function at and near criticality,
75: not cutting the perturbation series. As a result the possible
76: values of exact critical exponents have been obtained~\cite{K1} for
77: the Ginzburg--Landau ($\varphi^4$) model with $O(n)$ symmetry,
78: where $n=1, 2, 3, \ldots$ is the dimensionality of the order
79: parameter. Our predictions completely agree with the
80: known exact and rigorous results in two dimensions~\cite{Baxter},
81: and are equally valid also in three dimensions. In~\cite{K1},
82: we have compared our results to some Monte Carlo (MC) simulations
83: and experiments~\cite{IS,SM,GA}. It has been shown~\cite{K1} that the
84: actually discussed MC data for 3D Ising~\cite{IS} and
85: $XY$~\cite{SM} models are fully consistent with our theoretical
86: predictions, but not with those of the perturbative renormalization
87: group (RG) theory~\cite{Wilson,Ma,Justin}. From the theoretical
88: and mathematical point of view, the invalidity of the conventional
89: RG expansions has been demonstrated in~\cite{K1}.
90: The current paper, dealing with numerical transfer-matrix analysis of
91: the two--point correlation function in 2D Ising model, as well as with the
92: analysis of MC data for the three--dimensional Ising, $\lambda \varphi^4$
93: and XY models, presents a more general confirmation that the correct values
94: of critical exponents are those predicted by the GFD theory.
95: Our estimations are based on the finite--size scaling theory,
96: which by itself is an attractive field of investigations~\cite{Chamati}
97: and has increasing importance in modern physics~\cite{BDT}.
98:
99:
100: \section{Critical exponents predicted by GFD theory} \label{sec:crex}
101:
102: Our theory provides possible values of exact critical exponents
103: $\gamma$ and $\nu$ for the $\varphi^4$ model whith $O(n)$
104: symmetry ($n$--component vector model) given by the Hamiltonian
105: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Ha}
106: H/T= \int \left[ r_0 \varphi^2({\bf x})
107: + c (\nabla \varphi({\bf x}))^2
108: + u \varphi^4({\bf x}) \right] d{\bf x} \; ,
109: \end{equation}
110: where $r_0$ is the only parameter depending on temperature $T$,
111: and the dependence is linear. At the spatial
112: dimensionality $d=2, 3$ and $n=1, 2, 3, ...$ the critical
113: exponents are~\cite{K1}
114: \begin{eqnarray}
115: \gamma &=& \frac{d+2j+4m}{d(1+m+j)-2j} \label{eq:gamma} \; , \\
116: \nu &=& \frac{2(1+m)+j}{d(1+m+j)-2j} \label{eq:nu} \; ,
117: \end{eqnarray}
118: where $m \ge 1$ and $j \ge -m$ are integers. At $n=1$ we have
119: $m=3$ and $j=0$ to fit the known exact results for the
120: two--dimensional Ising model. As proposed in Ref.~\cite{K1},
121: in the case of $n=2$ we have $m=3$ and $j=1$, which yields in
122: three dimensions $\nu=9/13$ and $\gamma=17/13$.
123:
124: In the present analysis the correction--to--scaling
125: exponent $\theta$ for the susceptibility is also relevant. The susceptibility
126: is related to the correlation function in the Fourier representation
127: $G({\bf k})$, i.~e., $\chi \propto G({\bf 0})$~\cite{Ma}. In the
128: thermodynamic limit, this relation makes sense at $T > T_c$, where
129: $T_c$ is the critical temperature.
130: According to our theory, $t^{\gamma} G({\bf 0})$ can be expanded in a Taylor
131: series of $t^{2 \nu -\gamma}$ at $t \to 0$.
132: In this case the reduced temperature $t$ is defined as
133: $t=r_0(T)-r_0(T_c) \propto T-T_c$.
134: Formally, $t^{2 \gamma - d \nu}$ appears as second expansion
135: parameter in the derivations in Ref.~\cite{K1}, but,
136: according to the final result represented by
137: Eqs.~(\ref{eq:gamma}) and~(\ref{eq:nu}),
138: $(2 \gamma - d \nu)/(2 \nu -\gamma)$ is a natural number.
139: Some of the expansion coefficients can be zero, so that in general we have
140: \begin{equation} \label{eq:Delta}
141: \theta=\ell \, (2 \nu -\gamma) \; ,
142: \end{equation}
143: where $\ell$ may have integer values 1, 2, 3, etc. One can expect
144: that $\ell=4$ holds at $n=1$ (which yields $\theta=1$ at $d=2$ and
145: $\theta=1/3$ at $d=3$) and the only nonvanishing
146: corrections are those of the order $t^{\theta}$, $t^{2 \theta}$,
147: $t^{3 \theta}$, since the known corrections to scaling for
148: physical quantities, such as magnetization or correlation length,
149: are analytical in the case of the two--dimensional Ising model.
150: Here we suppose that the confluent corrections become analytical,
151: i.~e. $\theta$ takes the value $1$, at $d=2$.
152: Besides, similar corrections to scaling are expected for
153: susceptibility $\chi$ and magnetization $M$ since both these
154: quantities are related to $G({\bf 0})$, i.~e.,
155: $\chi \propto G({\bf 0})$ and $M^2=\lim_{x \to \infty}
156: \langle \varphi({\bf 0}) \varphi({\bf x}) \rangle
157: = \lim_{V \to \infty} G({\bf 0})/V$
158: hold where $V=L^d$ is the volume and $L$ is the linear size of
159: the system. The above limit is meaningful at $L \to \infty$,
160: but $G({\bf 0})/V$ may be considered as a definition of $M^2$
161: for finite systems too. The latter means that corrections
162: to finite--size scaling for $\chi$ and $M$ are similar at $T=T_c$.
163: According to the scaling hypothesis and finite--size scaling
164: theory, the same is true for the discussed here corrections at $t \to 0$,
165: where in both cases ($\chi$ and $M$) the definition
166: $t= \mid r_0(T)-r_0(T_c) \mid$ is valid.
167: Thus, the expected expansion of the susceptibility $\chi$ looks
168: like $\chi = t^{-\gamma} \left( a_0+a_1 t^{\theta} +a_2 t^{2 \theta}
169: + \cdots \right)$.
170:
171: Our hypothesis is that $j=j(n)$ and $\ell=\ell(n)$
172: monotoneously increase with $n$ to fit the known exponents
173: for the spherical model at $n \to \infty$.
174: The analysis of the MC and experimental results here and in~\cite{K1}
175: enables us to propose that $j(n)=n-1$,
176: $\ell(n)=n+3$, and $m=3$ hold at least at $n=1,2$. These relations,
177: probably, are true also at $n \ge 3$.
178: This general hypothesis is consistent with the idea that
179: the critical exponents $\gamma$, $\nu$, and $\theta$
180: can be represented by some analytical functions of $n$ which are
181: valid for all natural positive $n$ and yield
182: $\eta=2-\gamma/\nu \propto 1/n$ rather than $\eta \propto 1/n^s$
183: with $s=2,3, \ldots$ ($s$ must be a natural number to avoid a
184: contradiction, i.~e., irrational values of $j(n)$ at natural $n$) at
185: $n \to \infty$. At these conditions, $j(n)$ and $\ell(n)$ are
186: linear functions of $n$ (with integer coefficients) such that
187: $\ell(n)/j(n) \to 1$ at $n \to \infty$, and $m$ is constant.
188: Besides, $j(1)=0$, $m(1)=3$, and $\ell(1)=4$ hold to coincide with the
189: known results at $n=1$.
190: Then, our specific choice is the best one among few possibilities
191: providing more or less reasonable agreement with the actually discussed
192: numerical an experimental results.
193:
194: We allow that different $\ell$ values correspond to
195: the leading correction--to--scaling exponent for different
196: quantities related to $G({\bf k})$. The expansion of
197: $G({\bf k})$ by itself contains a nonvanishing term of order
198: $t^{2 \nu -\gamma} \equiv t^{\eta \nu}$ (in the form
199: $G({\bf k}) \simeq\linebreak t^{-\gamma} \left[ g({\bf k} t^{-\nu})
200: + t^{\eta \nu} g_1({\bf k} t^{-\nu}) \right]$ whith
201: $g_1({\bf 0})=0$, since $\ell >1$ holds in the case of susceptibility)
202: to compensate the corresponding correction term (produced
203: by $c \left( \nabla \varphi \right)^2$) in the equation
204: for $1/G({\bf k})$ (cf.~\cite{K1}).
205: The latter means, e.~g., that the correlation
206: length $\xi$ estimated from an approximate ansatz like
207: $G({\bf k}) \propto 1/ \left[{\bf k}^2+ (1/\xi)^2 \right]$
208: used in~\cite{Janke,Ballesteros} also contains a correction
209: proportional to $t^{\eta \nu}$. Since $\eta \nu$ has a rather small value,
210: the presence of such a correction (and, presumably, also the higher order
211: corrections $t^{2 \eta \nu}$, $t^{3 \eta \nu}$, etc.) makes the above
212: ansatz unsuitable for an accurate numerical correction--to--scaling
213: analysis.
214:
215: The correction $t^{\eta \nu}$ is related to the correction $L^{-\eta}$
216: in the finite--size scaling expressions at criticality.
217: The existence of such a correction in the asymptotic
218: expansion of the critical real--space Green's (correlation) function
219: is confirmed by our results for the 2D~Ising model discussed
220: in Sec.~\ref{sec:result}.
221:
222: Our consideration can be generalized easily to the case
223: where the Hamiltonian parameter $r_0$ is a nonlinear analytical
224: function of $T$. Nothing is changed in the above expansions
225: if the reduced temperature $t$, as before, is defined by
226: $t=r_0(T)-r_0(T_c)$. However, analytical corrections to scaling appear
227: (and also corrections like\linebreak $(T-T_c)^{m+n \theta}$ with
228: integer $m$ and $n$) if $t$ is reexpanded in terms of $T-T_c$ at $T>T_c$.
229: The solution at the critical point remains unchanged, since the phase
230: transition occurs at the same (critical) value of $r_0$.
231:
232:
233: \section{Exact transfer matrix algorithms for calculation of the
234: correlation function in 2D Ising model}
235: \label{sec:algorithm}
236:
237: \subsection{Adoption of standard methods}
238:
239: The transfer matrix method,
240: applied to analytical calculations on two--dimensional lattices, is well
241: known~\cite{Onsager,Baxter}. However, no analytical methods exist for an exact
242: calculation of the correlation function in 2D Ising model. This can be done
243: numerically by adopting the conventional transfer matrix
244: method and modifying it to reach the maximal result (calculation of as far
245: as possible larger system) with minimal number of arithmetic operations,
246: as discussed further on.
247:
248: We consider the two--dimensional Ising model where spins are located
249: either on the lattice of dimensions $N \times L$, illustrated in
250: Fig.~\ref{lattice}a, or on the lattice of dimensions $\sqrt{2} N \times
251: \sqrt{2} L$, shown in Fig.~\ref{lattice}b.
252: The periodic boundaries
253: are indicated by dashed lines. In case (a) we have $L$ rows,
254: and in case (b) -- $2L$ rows, each containing $N$ spins.
255: Fig.~\ref{lattice} shows an illustrative example with $N=4$ and $L=3$.
256: Let us $\sigma(k)$ be the spin variable ($\pm 1$) in the $k$--th
257: node of the first row. Here nodes are numbered sequently from
258: left to right, and rows -- from bottom to top.
259: Our method can be used to calculate the
260: correlation (Greens) function between any two spins on the lattice.
261: As an example we consider the Greens function $G(r)$ in
262: $\langle 1 0 \rangle$ crystallographyc direction,
263: indicated in Fig.~\ref{lattice} by arrows, i.~e.,
264: \begin{eqnarray}
265: G(r) &=& \langle \sigma(k) \sigma(k+r) \rangle
266: \hspace*{9.5ex}: \hspace{5ex} \mbox{case (a)} \label{eq:cora} \\
267: G(r) &=& \langle \sigma(k) \sigma'(k+\Delta(r)) \rangle
268: \hspace*{5ex}: \hspace{5ex} \mbox{case (b)} \label{eq:corb} \;.
269: \end{eqnarray}
270: Here $\sigma'$ refers to the $(1+r)$--th row. It has a shift in the
271: argument $k$ by $\Delta(r)=r/2$ for even and $\Delta(r)=(r-1)/2$ for odd $r$.
272: It is supposed that
273: $\sigma(k+N) \equiv \sigma(k)$ holds according to the periodic
274: boundary conditions.
275:
276: \begin{figure}
277: \centerline{\psfig{figure=1a.eps,width=6.5cm,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}
278: \hspace*{5ex}
279: \psfig{figure=1b.eps,width=6.5cm,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}}
280: \caption{\small Illustrative examples of the lattices with
281: dimensions $N \times L$~(a) and $\sqrt{2} N \times \sqrt{2} L$~(b)
282: with periodic boundary conditions along the dashed lines.
283: The correlation function has been calculated in the $\langle 10 \rangle$
284: crystallographic direction, as indicated by the arrows.}
285: \label{lattice}
286: \end{figure}
287:
288: For convenience, first we consider an application of the transfer matrix
289: method to calculation of the partition function
290: \begin{equation}
291: Z= \sum\limits_{ \{\sigma_k \} }
292: \exp \left( \beta \sum\limits_{\langle i,j \rangle}
293: \sigma_i \sigma_j \right) \;,
294: \end{equation}
295: where the summation runs over all the possible spin
296: configurations $\{ \sigma_k \}$, and the argument of the exponent
297: represents the Hamiltonian of the system including summation over
298: all the neighbouring spin pairs $\langle i,j \rangle$ of the given
299: configuration $\{ \sigma_k \}$;
300: parameter $\beta$ is the coupling constant.
301: Let us consider lattice~(a) in Fig.~\ref{lattice}, but containing $n$ rows
302: without periodic boundaries along the vertical axis and without interaction
303: between spins in the upper row. We define the
304: $2^N$--component vector ${\bf r}_n$ such that the $i$--th
305: component of this vector represents the contribution to the partition
306: function provided by the $i$--th spin configuration of the upper
307: row. Then we have an obvious recurrence relation
308: \begin{equation}
309: {\bf r}_{n+1}=T \, {\bf r}_n \;,
310: \label{eq:recur_a}
311: \end{equation}
312: where $T$ is the transfer matrix with the elements
313: \begin{equation}
314: T_{ij}= \exp \left( \beta \sum\limits_k \left[ \sigma(k) \right]_j
315: \left[ \sigma(k+1) \right]_j +
316: \beta \sum\limits_k \left[ \sigma(k) \right]_j
317: \left[ \sigma(k) \right]_i \right) \;.
318: \label{eq:trm}
319: \end{equation}
320: Here $\left[ \sigma(k) \right]_i$ is the spin variable in the
321: $k$--th position in a row provided that the whole set of
322: spin variables of this row forms the $i$--th configuration.
323: The first and the second sum in~(\ref{eq:trm}) represent the
324: Boltzmann weights for the spin interaction in the $n$--th row,
325: and between the $n$--th and $(n+1)$--th rows, respectively.
326: In this case, ${\bf r}_1$ is the vector with components
327: $\left( {\bf r}_1 \right)_j =1$. If we set
328: \begin{equation}
329: \left( {\bf r}_1 \right)_j = \delta_{j,i} \;,
330: \label{eq:delta}
331: \end{equation}
332: then the components
333: of the resulting vector ${\bf r}_n={\bf r}_n^{(i)}$ give us the
334: partial contributions
335: to the partition function corresponding to a fixed, i.~e. $i$--th,
336: configuration of the first row. The periodic boundary
337: conditions along the vertical axis means that the $(L+1)$--th
338: row must be identical to the first one, i.~e., we have to take
339: the $i$--th component of the vector ${\bf r}_{L+1}^{(i)}$ and make
340: the summation over $i$ to get the partition function $Z$ of the
341: originally defined lattice in Fig.~\ref{lattice}a.
342: Note that the missing Boltzmann weights
343: for the interaction between spins in the $(L+1)$--th row
344: are already included in the first row.
345: By virtue of~(\ref{eq:recur_a}) and~(\ref{eq:delta}), we arrive
346: to the well known expression~\cite{Baxter,Huang}
347: \begin{equation}
348: Z= \sum\limits_i \left( {\bf r}_{L+1}^{(i)} \right)_i =
349: \mbox{Trace} \left(T^L \right)= \sum\limits_i \lambda_i^L \;,
350: \end{equation}
351: where $\lambda_i$ are the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $T$.
352: An analogous expression for the lattice in Fig.~\ref{lattice}b reads
353: \begin{equation}
354: Z= \sum\limits_i \left( {\bf r}_{2L+1}^{(i)} \right)_i = \mbox{Trace}
355: \left( \left[ T_2 T_1 \right]^L \right)
356: %= \sum\limits_i {\lambda'}_i^L
357: \;,
358: \end{equation}
359: where the vectors ${\bf r}_n$ obey the reccurence relation
360: \begin{equation}
361: {\bf r}_{n+1}=T_{1,2} \, {\bf r}_n
362: \label{eq:recur_b}
363: \end{equation}
364: similar to~(\ref{eq:recur_a}), but with different transfer
365: matrices $T_1$ and $T_2$ for odd and even row numbers $n$, respectively.
366: They include the Boltzmann weights for the interaction between
367: two subsequent (odd--even or even--odd, respectively) rows, i.~e.,
368: \begin{equation}
369: \left( T_{1,2} \right)_{ij} = \exp \left( \beta \sum\limits_k
370: \left[ \sigma(k) \right]_i \left\{ \left[ \sigma(k) \right]_j
371: + \left[ \sigma(k \pm 1) \right]_j \right\} \right) \;.
372: \end{equation}
373:
374: The actual scheme can be easily adopted to calculate the
375: correlation functions~(\ref{eq:cora}) and~(\ref{eq:corb}).
376: Namely, $G(x)$ is given by the statistical average $Z' / Z$,
377: where the sum $Z'$ is calculated in the same way as $Z$, but
378: including the corresponding product of spin variables, which
379: implies the following replacements:
380: \begin{eqnarray}
381: \left( {\bf r}_1 \right)_j = \delta_{j,i} \Rightarrow
382: \left( {\bf r}_1 \right)_j = \delta_{j,i} \,
383: \left( N^{-1} \sum\limits_{\ell=1}^N \left[ \sigma(\ell) \right]_i
384: \left[ \sigma(\ell+x) \right]_i \right)&& : \mbox{case~(a)}
385: \label{eq:Zpa} \\
386: \left( {\bf r}_{x+1}^{(i)} \right)_j \Rightarrow
387: \left( {\bf r}_{x+1}^{(i)} \right)_j \times
388: \left( N^{-1} \sum\limits_{\ell=1}^N \left[ \sigma(\ell) \right]_i
389: \left[ \sigma(\ell+ \Delta(x)) \right]_j \right)&& : \mbox{case~(b)} \;.
390: \label{eq:Zpb}
391: \end{eqnarray}
392: The index $i$, entering in the sums
393: $Z'= \sum_i \left( {\bf r}_{L+1}^{(i)} \right)_i$ [case~(a)] and
394: $Z'= \sum_i \left( {\bf r}_{2L+1}^{(i)} \right)_i$ [case~(b)],
395: refers to the current configuration of the first row.
396: These equations are obtained by an averaging in (\ref{eq:cora})
397: and~(\ref{eq:corb}) over all the equivalent $k$ values.
398: Such a symmetrical form allows to reduce the amount of numerical calculations:
399: due to the symmetry we need the summation over only $\approx 2^N/N$
400: nonequivalent configurations of the first row instead of the total
401: number of $2^N$ configurations.
402:
403:
404: \subsection{Improved algorithms}
405:
406: The number of the required arithmetic operations can be further reduced
407: if the recurrence relations~(\ref{eq:recur_a}) and~(\ref{eq:recur_b})
408: are split into $N$ steps of adding single spin. To formulate this
409: in a suitable way, let us first number all the $2^N$ spin configurations
410: $\{ \sigma(1); \sigma(2); \cdots ; \sigma(N-1); \sigma(N) \}$ by an
411: index $i$ as follows:
412: \begin{equation}
413: \begin{array}{@{i \: = \:}l@{\hspace{2ex} : \hspace{3ex} \{}*{6}{c}@{\}}}
414: 1 & -1; & -1; & \cdots; & -1; & -1; & -1 \\
415: 2 & -1; & -1; & \cdots; & -1; & -1; & +1 \\
416: 3 & -1; & -1; & \cdots; & -1; & +1; & -1 \\
417: 4 & -1; & -1; & \cdots; & -1; & +1; & +1 \\
418: \multicolumn{7}{c}\dotfill \\
419: 2^N & +1; & +1; & \cdots; & +1; & +1; & +1
420: \end{array}
421: \label{eq:numbering}
422: \end{equation}
423: We remind that the sequence $\left[ \sigma(k) \right]_i$ with
424: $k=1, 2, \ldots, N$ corresponds to the numbers in the $i$--th row.
425: The spin variables in~(\ref{eq:numbering}) change just like
426: the digits of subsequent integer numbers in the binary counting system.
427: %This numbering is particularly suitable to make an algorithm for computer
428: %calculations.
429:
430: \begin{figure}
431: \centerline{\psfig{figure=2a.eps,width=6.5cm,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}
432: \hspace*{5ex}
433: \psfig{figure=2b.eps,width=6.5cm,height=5.5cm,angle=-90}}
434: \vspace*{-2ex}
435: \caption{\small Schematic pictures illustrating the algorithms of
436: calculation for the lattices $a$ and $b$ introduced in Fig.~\ref{lattice}.}
437: \label{latt}
438: \end{figure}
439:
440: Consider now a lattice where $n$ rows are completed, while the
441: $(n+1)$--th row contains only $\ell$ spins where $\ell < N$, as
442: illustrated in Fig.~\ref{latt} in both cases~(a) and~(b) taking
443: as an example $N=4$. We consider the partial contribution
444: $\left( {\bf r}_{n+1,\ell} \right)_i$ (i.~e., $i$--th component of vector
445: ${\bf r}_{n+1,\ell}$)
446: in the partition function $Z$ (or $Z'$) provided by a fixed ($i$--th)
447: configuration of the set of $N$ upper spins.
448: These are the sequently numbered spins
449: shown in Fig.~\ref{latt} by empty circles.
450: For simplicity, we have droped
451: the index denoting the configuration of the first row.
452: In case~(b), the spin depicted
453: by a double--circle has a fixed value $\sigma'$.
454: In general, this spin is the nearest bottom--left neighbour of the first
455: spin in the upper row. According to this, one has to distinguish
456: between odd and even $n$: $\sigma'$ refers either to the first
457: (for odd $n$), or to the $N$--th (for even $n$) spin of the $n$--th row.
458: It is supposed that the Boltzmann weights are included corresponding
459: to the solid lines in Fig.~\ref{latt} connecting the spins.
460: In case~(a) the weights responsible
461: for the interaction between the upper numbered spins are not included.
462: Obviously, for a given $\ell>1$, ${\bf r}_{n+1,\ell}$
463: can be calculeted from ${\bf r}_{n+1,\ell-1}$ via summation over
464: one spin variable, marked in Fig.~\ref{latt} by a cross.
465: In case~(a) it is true also for $\ell=1$, whereas in case~(b)
466: this variable has fixed value $\sigma'$ at $\ell=1$. In the latter case
467: the summation over $\sigma'$ is performed at the last step when
468: the $(n+1)$--th row is already completed. These manipulations enable
469: us to represent the recurrence relation~(\ref{eq:recur_a}) as
470: \begin{equation}
471: {\bf r}_{n+1}=T \, {\bf r}_n \equiv
472: \widetilde W_N \, \widetilde W_{N-1} \cdots \widetilde W_2 \,
473: \widetilde W_1 \, {\bf r}_n
474: \label{eq:rec_a}
475: \end{equation}
476: with
477: \begin{equation}
478: \widetilde W_{\ell} = \sum\limits_{\sigma= \pm 1} W_{\ell} (\sigma) \;,
479: \label{eq:wa}
480: \end{equation}
481: where the componets of the matrices $W_{\ell}(\sigma)$ are given by
482: \begin{eqnarray}
483: \left( W_1(\sigma) \right)_{ij} &=& \delta \left( j,j_1(\sigma ,1,i) \right)
484: \cdot \exp \left( \beta \, \sigma \left\{ \left[ \sigma(1) \right]_i
485: + \left[ \sigma(2) \right]_i + \left[ \sigma(N) \right]_i \right\} \right)
486: \nonumber \\
487: \left( W_{\ell}(\sigma) \right)_{ij} &=& \delta \left( j,j_1(\sigma,\ell,i)
488: \right)\cdot \exp \left( \beta \, \sigma \left\{ \left[ \sigma(\ell) \right]_i
489: + \left[ \sigma(\ell+1) \right]_i \right\} \right) \hspace{1ex}:
490: \hspace{1ex} 1< \ell <N \nonumber \\
491: \left( W_N(\sigma) \right)_{ij} &=& \delta \left( j,j_1(\sigma,N,i) \right)
492: \cdot \exp \left( \beta \, \sigma \left[ \sigma(N) \right]_i \right) \;.
493: \label{eq:a}
494: \end{eqnarray}
495: Here $\delta(j,k)$ is the Kronecker symbol and
496: \begin{equation}
497: j_1(\sigma,\ell,i)= i+ \left( \sigma- \left[ \sigma(\ell) \right]_i \right)
498: \, 2^{N-\ell-1}
499: \label{eq:j1}
500: \end{equation}
501: are the indexes of the old configurations containing $\ell-1$ spins in
502: the $(n+1)$--th row depending on the value $\sigma$ of the spin
503: marked in Fig.~\ref{latt}a by a cross, as well as on the index $i$ of the
504: new configuration with $\ell$ spins in the $(n+1)$--th row, as consistent
505: with the numbering~(\ref{eq:numbering}).
506:
507: The above equations~(\ref{eq:rec_a}) to~(\ref{eq:a}) refers to case~(a).
508: In case~(b) we have
509: \begin{equation}
510: {\bf r}_{n+1}=T_{1,2} \, {\bf r}_n \equiv \sum\limits_{\sigma'= \pm 1}
511: \widetilde W_N^{(1,2)} \, \widetilde W_{N-1}^{(1,2)} \cdots
512: \widetilde W_2^{(1,2)} \, W_1^{(1,2)}(\sigma') \, {\bf r}_n \;,
513: \label{eq:rec_b}
514: \end{equation}
515: where $\widetilde W_{\ell}^{(1,2)}$ are the matrices
516: \begin{equation}
517: \widetilde W_{\ell}^{(1,2)} =
518: \sum\limits_{\sigma= \pm 1} W_{\ell}^{(1,2)} (\sigma) \;.
519: \label{eq:wb}
520: \end{equation}
521: Here indexes 1 and 2 refer to odd and even row numbers $n$, respectively,
522: and the components of the matrices $W_{\ell}^{(1,2)}(\sigma)$ are
523: \begin{equation}
524: \left( W_{\ell}^{(1,2)}(\sigma) \right)_{ij}
525: = \delta \left( j,j_{1,2}(\sigma,\ell,i)
526: \right) \cdot \exp \left( \beta \left[ \sigma(\ell) \right]_i
527: \left\{ \sigma+ \left[ \sigma(\ell+1) \right]_i \right\} \right) \;,
528: \end{equation}
529: where $\left[ \sigma(N+1) \right]_i \equiv \sigma'$ and the index
530: $j_1(\sigma,\ell,i)$ is given by~(\ref{eq:j1}). For the other index
531: we have
532: \begin{eqnarray}
533: j_2(\sigma,1,i) &=& 2i - 2^{N-1} \left( \left[ \sigma(1) \right]_i +1 \right)
534: + \frac{1}{2} (\sigma-1) \nonumber \\
535: j_2(\sigma,\ell,i) &=& j_1(\sigma,\ell,i) \hspace{2ex}:
536: \hspace{2ex} \ell \ge 2 \;.
537: \end{eqnarray}
538:
539: Note that the matrices $\widetilde W_{\ell}$ and
540: $\widetilde W_{\ell}^{(1,2)}$ have only two nonzero elements in
541: each row, so that the number of the arithmetic operations required
542: for the construction of one row of spins via subsequent calculation
543: of the vectors ${\bf r}_{n+1,\ell}$ increases like
544: $2N \cdot 2^N$ instead of $2^{2N}$ operations necassary for a straightforward
545: calculation of the vector $T {\bf r}_n$. Taking into account
546: the above discussed symmetry of the first row, the computation
547: time is proportional to $2^{2L}L$ for both $L \times L$ (a)
548: and $\sqrt{2} L \times \sqrt{2} L$ (b) lattices in Fig.~\ref{lattice}
549: with periodic boundary conditions.
550:
551: \subsection{Application to different boundary conditions}
552: \label{subsec:anti}
553:
554: The developed algorithms can be easily extended
555: to the lattices with antiperiodic boundary conditions. The latter implies
556: that $\sigma(N+1)=-\sigma(N)$ holds for each row, and similar condition
557: is true for each column. We can consider also the mixed boundary
558: conditions: periodic along the horizontal axis and antiperiodic along
559: the vertical one, or vice versa. To replace the periodic boundary conditions
560: with the antiperiodic ones we need only to change the sign of the
561: corresponding products of the spin variables on the boundaries.
562: Consider, e.~g., the case~(a) in Fig.~\ref{lattice}. The change of the
563: boundary conditions along the vertical axis means that the first term
564: in the argument of the exponent in each of the Eqs.~(\ref{eq:a}) changes
565: the sign for the last row, i.~e., when $n=L$.
566: The same along the horizontal axis implies
567: that the term $\left[ \sigma(N) \right]_i$ in the equation for
568: $\left( W_1(\sigma) \right)_{ij}$ changes the sign. In this case, however,
569: the symmetry with respect to the configurations of the first row is partly
570: broken and, therefore, we need summation over a larger number of
571: nonequivalent configurations.
572:
573:
574: \section{Transfer matrix study of critical Greens function
575: and corrections to scaling in 2D Ising model}
576: \label{sec:correc}
577:
578: \subsection{General scaling arguments}
579: \label{subsec:scaling}
580:
581: It is well known that in the thermodynamic limit the real--space Greens
582: function of the Ising model behaves like $G(r) \propto r^{2-d-\eta}$ at
583: large distances $r \to \infty$ at the critical point $\beta=\beta_c$,
584: where $\eta$ is the critical exponent having the value $\eta=1/4$ in
585: two dimensions ($d=2$). Based on our transfer matrix algorithms developed
586: in Sec~\ref{sec:algorithm}, here we test the finite--size scaling and,
587: particularly, the corrections to scaling at criticality.
588:
589: In~\cite{K1} the critical correlation function in
590: the Fourier representation, i.~e. $G({\bf k})$ at $T=T_c$,
591: has been considered for the $\varphi^4$ model. In this case the minimal
592: value of the wave vector magnitude $k$ is related to the linear system size
593: $L$ via $k_{min}=2 \pi/ L$. In analogy to the consideration in
594: Sec.~5.2 of~\cite{K1}, one expects that $k/k_{min}$ is an essential
595: finite--size scaling argument, corresponding to $r/L$ in the real space.
596: In the Ising model at $r \sim L$ one has to take into account
597: also the anisotropy effects, so that the expected finite--size scaling
598: relation for the real--space Greens function at the critical point
599: $\beta=\beta_c$ reads
600: \begin{equation}
601: G(r) \simeq r^{2-d-\eta} \, f(r/L) \hspace{5ex}:
602: \hspace{3ex} r \to \infty \;, L \to \infty \;,
603: \label{eq:scal}
604: \end{equation}
605: where the scaling function $f(z)$ depends also on the
606: crystallographic orientation of the line connecting the correlating spins,
607: as well as on the orientation of the periodic boundaries.
608: A natural extension of~(\ref{eq:scal}), including the corrections to scaling,
609: is
610: \begin{equation}
611: G(r) = \sum\limits_{\ell \ge 0} r^{-\lambda_{\ell}} \, f_{\ell}(r/L) \;,
612: \label{eq:scale}
613: \end{equation}
614: where the term with $\lambda_0 \equiv d-2+\eta$ is the leading one,
615: whereas those with the subsequently increasing exponents $\lambda_1$,
616: $\lambda_2$, etc., represent the corrections to scaling.
617: By a substitution $f_{\ell}(z)=z^{\lambda_{\ell}} f'(z)$,
618: the asymptotic expansion~(\ref{eq:scale}) transforms to
619: %\begin{equation}
620: %G(r) = \sum\limits_{\ell \ge 0} L^{-\lambda_{\ell}} \, f'_{\ell}(r/L) \;,
621: %\label{eq:scalel}
622: %\end{equation}
623: %or in another representation
624: \begin{equation}
625: G(r) = f'_0(r/L) \, L^{-\lambda_0} \left( 1 + \sum\limits_{\ell \ge 1}
626: L^{-\omega_{\ell}} \, \tilde f_{\ell}(r/L) \right) \;,
627: \label{eq:scalel1}
628: \end{equation}
629: where $\tilde f_{\ell}(z) = f_{\ell}'(z)/f_0(z)$ and
630: $\omega_{\ell}=\lambda_{\ell}-\lambda_0$ are the correction--to--scaling
631: exponents.
632:
633: \begin{figure}
634: \centerline{\psfig{figure=3.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm,angle=-90}}
635: \caption{\small Test of the finite--size scaling relation
636: $G(r) \simeq r^{-1/4} f(r/L)$ in 2D Ising model on
637: a square $L \times L$ lattice with periodic boundary conditions.
638: The values of the scaling function $f(r/L)$ estimated at
639: %four different lattice sizes
640: $L=8$ (triangles), $L=12$ (circles), $L=15$ (squares), and $L=18$ (pluses)
641: well lie on a common smooth line showing that corrections to this
642: scaling relation are small.
643: }
644: \label{fig:scaling}
645: \end{figure}
646:
647: We have tested the scaling relation~(\ref{eq:scal}) in 2D Ising model
648: by using the exact transfer matrix algorithms in Sec.~\ref{sec:algorithm}.
649: Consider, e.~g., the correlation function in $\langle 10 \rangle$
650: crystallographic direction in the specific case~(a) discussed in
651: Sec.~\ref{sec:algorithm}. According to~(\ref{eq:scal}), all points
652: of $f(r/L)=r^{1/4}G(r)$ corresponding to large enough values
653: of $r$ and $L$ should well fit a common smooth line, as it is actually
654: observed in Fig~\ref{fig:scaling} at $2 \le r \le L/2$ and
655: $L=8$, $12$, $15$, and $18$. This example shows that the corrections
656: to~(\ref{eq:scal}) are rather small, since the deviations from the
657: spline curve constructed at $L=18$ are very small at relatively
658: small $L$ values and even at $r=2$.
659: In general, our calculations provide a strong numerical evidence
660: of correctness of the asymptotic expansion~(\ref{eq:scalel1}):
661: at a given ratio $r/L$, the correlation function is described by
662: an expansion in $L$ powers with a really striking accuracy.
663: Namely, our numerical analysis, which is sensitive to a variation
664: of $G(r)$ in the fourteens digit, does not reveal
665: an inconsistency with this asymptotic expansion.
666:
667: \subsection{Correction--to--scaling analysis for the
668: $L \times L$ lattice}
669: \label{subsec:ll}
670:
671: Based on the scaling analysis in Sec.~\ref{subsec:scaling},
672: here we discuss the corrections to scaling for the lattice
673: in Fig.~\ref{lattice}a. We have calculated the correlation
674: function $G(r)$ at a fixed ratio $r/L=0.5$ in $\langle 10 \rangle$ direction,
675: as well as at $r/L= 0.5 \sqrt{2}$ in $\langle 11 \rangle$ direction at
676: $L=2, 4, 6, \ldots$ with an aim to identify the correction exponents
677: in~(\ref{eq:scalel1}). Note that in the latter case the
678: replacement~(\ref{eq:Zpb}) is valid for $G(\sqrt{2}x)$
679: (where $x=1, 2, 3, \ldots$) with the only difference that $\Delta(x)=x$.
680:
681: Let us define the effective correction--to--scaling exponent
682: $\omega_{eff}(L)$ in 2D Ising model via the solution of the equations
683: \begin{equation}
684: \tilde L^{1/4}G(r=const \cdot \tilde L) = a + b \, \tilde L^{-\omega_{eff}}
685: \label{eq:omfit}
686: \end{equation}
687: at $\tilde L=L, \, L+\Delta L, \, L+ 2 \Delta L$ with respect to three
688: unknown quantities $\omega_{eff}$, $a$, and $b$.
689: According to~(\ref{eq:scalel1}), where $\lambda_0=\eta=1/4$,
690: such a definition gives us the leading correction--to--scaling
691: exponent $\omega$ at $L \to \infty$, i.~e., $\lim_{L \to \infty}
692: \omega_{eff}(L)=\omega$.
693:
694: \begin{table}
695: \caption{\small The correlation function $G(r=c \cdot L)$ in $\langle 10 \rangle$
696: ($c=0.5$) and $\langle 11 \rangle$ ($c=0.5 \sqrt{2}$) crystallographic
697: directions vs the linear size $L$ of the lattice~(a) in Fig.~\ref{lattice},
698: and the corresponding effective exponents $\omega_{eff}(L)$ and $\widetilde \omega(L)$.}
699: \label{tab1}
700: \vspace*{2ex}
701: \begin{center}
702: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
703: \hline
704: & \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{\rule[-2.5mm]{0mm}{7mm} direction $\langle 10 \rangle$}
705: & \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{direction $\langle 11 \rangle$} \\ \cline{2-6}
706: \raisebox{1.5ex}{L}
707: & \rule[-3mm]{0mm}{7.5mm}
708: $G(0.5 L)$ & $\omega_{eff}(L)$ & $G(0.5 \sqrt{2}L)$ & $\omega_{eff}(L)$ & $\widetilde \omega(L)$ \\ \hline
709: 2 & 0.84852813742386 & 2.7366493 & 0.8 & 1.8672201 & \\
710: 4 & 0.74052044609665 & 2.9569864 & 0.71375464684015 & 2.2148707 & \\
711: 6 & 0.67202206468538 & 1.8998036 & 0.65238484475089 & 2.1252078 & \\
712: 8 & 0.62605120856389 & 1.5758895 & 0.60935351016910 & 2.0611362 & 1.909677 \\
713: 10& 0.59238112628953 & 1.6617494 & 0.57724041054810 & 2.0351831 & 1.996735 \\
714: 12& 0.56615525751968 & 1.7774398 & 0.55200680271678 & 2.0232909 & 2.002356 \\
715: 14& 0.54485584658226 & 1.8542943 & 0.53141907668442 & 2.0167606 & 2.001630 \\
716: 16& 0.52703456475995 & & 0.51414720882560 & & \\
717: 18& 0.51178753041103 & & 0.49934511003360 & & \\ \hline
718: \end{tabular}
719: \end{center}
720: \end{table}
721:
722: The calculated values of $G(r= c \cdot L)$ in the $\langle 10 \rangle$ and
723: $\langle 11 \rangle$ crystallographic directions [in case~(a)] with $c=0.5$
724: and $c=0.5 \sqrt{2}$, respectively, and the corresponding
725: effective exponents $\omega_{eff}(L)$, determined at $\Delta L=2$, are given
726: in Tab.~\ref{tab1}. In both cases the effective exponent $\omega_{eff}(L)$
727: seems to converge to a value about $2$. Besides, in the second case the
728: behavior is more smooth, so that we can try someway to extrapolate
729: the obtained sequence of $\omega_{eff}$ values (column 5 in Tab.~\ref{tab1})
730: to $L= \infty$. For this purpose we have considered the ratio of two
731: subsequent increments in $\omega_{eff}$,
732: \begin{equation}
733: r(L)= \frac{\omega_{eff}(L+\Delta L)- \omega_{eff}(L)}
734: {\omega_{eff}(L)- \omega_{eff}(L-\Delta L)} \;.
735: \label{eq:rl}
736: \end{equation}
737: A simple analysis shows that $r(L)$ behaves like
738: \begin{equation}
739: r(L) = 1 - \Delta L \cdot (\omega'+1) L^{-1} +o \left( L^{-2} \right)
740: \label{eq:rapp}
741: \end{equation}
742: at $L \to \infty$ if $\omega_{eff}(L) = \omega + o \left( L^{-\omega'}
743: \right)$ holds with an exponent $\omega'>1$.
744: The numerical data in Tab.~\ref{tab1} show that Eq.~(\ref{eq:rapp})
745: represents a good approximation for the largest values of $L$ at $\omega'=2$.
746: It suggests us that the leading and the subleading correction exponents
747: in~(\ref{eq:scalel1}) could be $\omega \equiv \omega_1=2$ and $\omega_2=4$,
748: respectively. Note that $\omega_{eff}(L)$ can be defined with a shift in
749: the argument. Our specific choice ensures
750: the best approximation by~(\ref{eq:rapp}) at the actual finite $L$ values.
751:
752: Let us now assume that the values of $\omega_{eff}(L)$ are known up to
753: $L=L_{max}$. Then we can calculate from~(\ref{eq:rl}) the $r(L)$ values
754: up to $L=L_{max}-\Delta L$ and make a suitable ansatz like
755: \begin{equation}
756: r(L)= 1 - 3 \Delta L \cdot L^{-1} + b \, L^{-2}
757: \hspace{3ex} \mbox{at} \hspace{2ex} L \ge L_{max}
758: \label{eq:rapp1}
759: \end{equation}
760: for a formal extrapolation of $\omega_{eff}(L)$ to $L=\infty$.
761: This is consistent with~(\ref{eq:rapp}) where $\omega'=2$. The
762: coefficient $b$ is found by matching the result to the precisely
763: calculated value at $L=L_{max}-\Delta L$.
764: The subsequent values of $\omega_{eff}(L)$, calculated
765: from~(\ref{eq:rl}) and~(\ref{eq:rapp1}) at $L>L_{max}$, converge
766: to some value $\widetilde \omega(L_{max})$ at $L \to \infty$.
767: If the leading correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$
768: is $2$, indeed, then the extrapolation result
769: $\widetilde \omega(L_{max})$ will tend to $2$ at $L_{max} \to \infty$
770: irrespective to the precise value of $\omega'$.
771:
772: As we see from Tab.~\ref{tab1}, the values of $\widetilde \omega(L)$
773: come remarkably closer to $2$ as compared to $\omega_{eff}(L)$, which seems
774: to indicate that $\omega=2$. However, as we have discussed in
775: Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}, there should be a nontrivial correction
776: in~(\ref{eq:scalel1}) with $\omega= \eta=1/4$. The fact that this
777: nontrivial correction does not manifest itself in the above numerical
778: analysis can be understood assuming that this correction term
779: has a very small amplitude.
780:
781: \subsection{Correction--to--scaling analysis for the
782: $\sqrt{2} L \times \sqrt{2} L$ lattice}
783: \label{sec:result}
784:
785: To test the existence of nontrivial corrections to scaling,
786: as proposed at the end of Sec.~\ref{subsec:ll}, here we make the
787: analysis of the correlation function $G(r)$ in $\langle 10 \rangle$
788: direction on the $\sqrt{2} L \times \sqrt{2} L$ lattice shown
789: in Fig.~\ref{lattice}b.
790: The advantage of case~(b) in Fig.~\ref{lattice}
791: as compared to case~(a) is that $\sqrt{2}$ times larger lattice corresponds
792: to the same number of the spins in one row.
793: Besides, in this case
794: we can use not only even, but all lattice sizes to evaluate the
795: exponent $\omega$ from calculations of $G(r=L)$, which means
796: that it is reasonable to use the step $\Delta L=1$ to evaluate
797: $\omega_{eff}$ and $\widetilde \omega(L)$ from Eqs.~(\ref{eq:omfit}),
798: (\ref{eq:rl}) and~(\ref{eq:rapp1}). The results, are given in Tab.~\ref{tab2}.
799: \begin{table}
800: \caption{\small The correlation function $G(r=L)$ in $\langle 10 \rangle$
801: crystallographic direction and the effective exponents
802: $\omega_{eff}(L)$ and $\widetilde \omega(L)$ vs the linear size $L$ of
803: the lattice~(b) in Fig.~\ref{lattice}.}
804: \label{tab2}
805: \vspace*{2ex}
806: \begin{center}
807: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
808: \hline
809: \rule[-3mm]{0mm}{7.5mm}
810: L & $G(L)$ & $\omega_{eff}(L)$ & $\widetilde \omega(L)$ \\ \hline
811: 2 & 0.8 & & \\
812: 3 & 0.7203484812087670 & & \\
813: 4 & 0.6690636562097066 & & \\
814: 5 & 0.6321925914229602 & & \\
815: 6 & 0.6037455936471098 & & \\
816: 7 & 0.5807668304926868 & & \\
817: 8 & 0.5616046762441826 & 2.066235298 & \\
818: 9 & 0.5452468033693456 & 2.043461090 & \\
819: 10& 0.5310294874153481 & 2.030235674 & 1.996772124 \\
820: 11& 0.5184950262041604 & 2.022130104 & 1.999333324 \\
821: 12& 0.5073151480587211 & 2.016864947 & 1.999941357 \\
822: 13& 0.4972468711401118 & 2.013265826 & 2.000036957 \\
823: 14& 0.4881056192765374 & 2.010701166 & 2.000040498 \\
824: 15& 0.4797481011874659 & 2.008811505 & 2.000044005 \\
825: 16& 0.4720609977942179 & 2.007380630 & 2.000053415 \\
826: 17& 0.4649532511721054 & 2.006272191 & 2.000063984 \\
827: 18& 0.4583506666254706 & 2.005396785 & 2.000073711 \\
828: 19& 0.4521920457268738 & & \\
829: 20& 0.4464263594840965 & & \\ \hline
830: \end{tabular}
831: \end{center}
832: \end{table}
833:
834: It is evident from Tab.~\ref{tab2} that the extrapolated values of the
835: effective correction exponent, i.~e. $\widetilde \omega(L)$, come surprisingly
836: close to $2$ at certain $L$ values. Besides, the ratio of increments
837: $r$~[cf.~Eq.~(\ref{eq:rl})] in this case is well approximated by~(\ref{eq:rapp1}),
838: as consistent with existence of a correction term in~(\ref{eq:scalel1})
839: with exponent $4$. On the other hand, we can see from Tab.~\ref{tab2} that
840: $\Delta \widetilde \omega(L)= \widetilde \omega(L) - 2$ tends to increase in
841: magnitude at $L>13$.
842: \begin{figure}
843: \centerline{\psfig{figure=4.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm,angle=-90}}
844: \caption{\small The deviation of the extrapolated effective exponent
845: $\Delta \widetilde \omega(L)=\widetilde \omega(L)-2$ as a
846: function of $L^{-4}$. The extrapolation has been made by using the
847: calculated $G(r)$ values in Tab.~\ref{tab2} up to the size $L+2$.
848: A linear convergence to zero would be expected in absence of
849: any correction term with exponent $\omega<2$.}
850: \label{fig:dev}
851: \end{figure}
852: We have illustrated this systematic and smooth
853: deviation in Fig.~\ref{fig:dev}. The only reasonable explanation of this behavior
854: is that the expansion~(\ref{eq:scalel1}) necessarily contains the exponent
855: $2$ and, likely, also the exponent $4$, and at the same time it contains
856: also a correction of a very small amplitude with $\omega<2$. The latter
857: explains the increase of $\Delta \widetilde \omega(L)$. Namely, the
858: correction to scaling for $L^{1/4}G(L)$ behaves like
859: $const \cdot L^{-2} \left[ 1 + o \left( L^{-2} \right)
860: + \varepsilon \, L^{2-\omega} \right]$ with $\varepsilon \ll 1$,
861: which implies a slow crossover of the effective exponent $\omega_{eff}(L)$
862: from the values about $2$ to the asymptotic value $\omega$.
863: Besides, in the region where $\varepsilon \, L^{2-\omega} \ll 1$ holds,
864: the effective exponent behaves like
865: \begin{equation}
866: \omega_{eff}(L) \simeq 2 + b_1 L^{2-\omega} + b_2 L^{-2} \;,
867: \label{eq:oeff}
868: \end{equation}
869: where $b_1 \ll 1$ and $b_2$ are constants.
870: By using the extrapolation of $\omega_{eff}$ with $\omega'=2$ in~(\ref{eq:rapp})
871: and~(\ref{eq:rapp1}), we have compensated the effect of the correction term
872: $b_2 L^{-2}$. Besides, by matching the amplitude $b$ in~(\ref{eq:rapp1}) we
873: have compensated also the next trivial correction term $\sim L^{-3}$ in
874: the expansion of $\omega_{eff}(L)$. It means that the extrapolated exponent
875: $\widetilde \omega(L)$ does not contain these expansion terms, i.~e., we have
876: \begin{equation}
877: \widetilde \omega(L) = 2 + b_1 L^{2-\omega} + \delta \widetilde \omega(L) \;,
878: \label{eq:omext}
879: \end{equation}
880: where $\delta \widetilde \omega(L)$ represents a remainder term. It
881: includes the trivial corrections like $L^{-4}$, $L^{-5}$, etc.,
882: and also subleading nontrivial corrections,
883: as well as corrections of order $\left(\varepsilon \, L^{2-\omega} \right)^2$,
884: $\left(\varepsilon \, L^{2-\omega} \right)^3$, etc.,
885: neglected in~(\ref{eq:oeff}). According to the latter,
886: Eq.~(\ref{eq:omext}) is meaningless in the thermodynamic limit
887: $L \to \infty$, but it can be used
888: to evaluate the correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$ from the
889: transient behavior at large, but not too large values of $L$ where
890: $b_1 L^{2-\omega} \ll 1$ holds. In our example the latter condition is well
891: satisfied, indeed.
892:
893: Based on~(\ref{eq:omext}), we have estimated
894: the nontrivial correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$ by using the
895: data of $\widetilde \omega(L)$ in Tab~\ref{tab2}. We have used two different ansatzs
896: \begin{equation}
897: 2-\omega_1 (L)= \ln \left[ \Delta \widetilde \omega(L) /
898: \Delta \widetilde \omega(L-1) \right] / \ln [ L/(L-1)]
899: \end{equation}
900: and
901: \begin{equation}
902: 2-\omega_2 (L)= L \, \left[ \Delta \widetilde \omega (L) - \Delta \widetilde
903: \omega (L-1) \right] / \Delta \widetilde \omega (L) \;,
904: \end{equation}
905: as well as the linear combination of them
906: \begin{equation}
907: \omega(L)=(1-\alpha) \; \omega_1(L) + \alpha \; \omega_2(L)
908: \label{eq:lincom}
909: \end{equation}
910: containing a free parameter $\alpha$. We have $\omega(L)=\omega_1(L)$
911: at $\alpha=0$ and $\omega(L)=\omega_2(L)$ at $\alpha=1$. In general,
912: the effective exponent $\omega(L)$ converges to the same result $\omega$
913: at arbitrary value of $\alpha$, but at some values the convergence is better.
914: The results for $2-\omega(L)$ vs $L^{\omega-6}$ at different $\alpha$ values
915: are represented in Fig.~\ref{fig:om} by a set of curves.
916: In this scale the convergence
917: to the asymptotic value would be linear
918: (within the actual region where $L \gg 1$ and
919: $b_1 \, L^{2-\omega} \ll 1$ hold) for $\alpha=0$ at the condition
920: $\delta \widetilde \omega(L) \propto L^{-4}$.
921: \begin{figure}
922: \centerline{\psfig{figure=5.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm,angle=-90}}
923: \caption{\small The exponent $2-\omega$ estimated from~(\ref{eq:lincom})
924: at different system sizes.
925: From top to bottom (if looking on the left hand side):
926: $\alpha = 0, 1, 3.5, 5.75, 7.243, 9.25, 12$. The results at
927: the optimal $\alpha$ value $7.243$ are shown by empty circles. The dashed line
928: indicates our theoretical asymptotic value $2-\omega =1.75$, whereas the
929: dot--dashed line -- that proposed in~\cite{BF}.}
930: \label{fig:om}
931: \end{figure}
932: We have choosen the scale of $L^{-5.75}$, as it is consistent with our
933: theoretical prediction in Sec.~\ref{sec:crex} that $\omega=1/4$. Nothing is
934: changed essentially if we use slightly different scale as, e.~g.,
935: $L^{-14/3}$ consistent with the correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega=4/3$
936: proposed in~\cite{BF}.
937: As we see from Fig.~\ref{fig:om}, all curves tend to merge at our asymptotic
938: value $2 -\omega=1.75$ shown by a dashed line. The optimal
939: value of $\alpha$ is defined by the condition that the last two estimates
940: $\omega(17)$ and $\omega(18)$ agree with each other. It occurs
941: at $\alpha=7.243$, and the last two points lie just on our theoretical line.
942:
943: It is interesting to compare our results with those of the
944: high temperature (HT) series analysis in~\cite{Addendum}.
945: The authors of~\cite{Addendum}
946: have found ``almost by inspection'' a correction with exponent
947: $\omega=9/4$ in the asymptotic expansion of the susceptibility $\chi$.
948: If such a correction exists in the susceptibility, it must be present
949: also in the correlation function due to the relation
950: $\chi= \sum_{\bf x} G({\bf x}_1-{\bf x})$. Surprisingly, our
951: extremely accurate calculations by exact algorithms have not
952: revealed such a correction. Our analysis shows that nontrivial
953: corrections exist, indeed, in the correlation function of 2D Ising
954: model, but they are so extremely small and strongly masked by trivial
955: corrections like $L^{-2}$ and $L^{-4}$ that they could not be
956: detected by approximate methods like HT series expansion.
957:
958:
959:
960: \subsection{Comparison to the known exact results and estimation
961: of numerical errors}
962: \label{sec:comex}
963:
964: We have carefully checked our algorithms comparing the results
965: with those obtained via a straightforward counting of all spin
966: configurations for small lattices, as well as comparing the
967: obtained values of the partition function to those calculated
968: from the known exact analytical expressions. Namely, an
969: exact expression for the partition function of a finite--size
970: 2D lattice on a torus with arbitrary coupling constants between
971: each pair of neighbouring spins has been reported in~\cite{Bednorz}
972: obtained by the loop counting method and represented
973: by determinants of certain transfer matrices. In the standard 2D
974: Ising model with only one common coupling constant $\beta$ these
975: matrices can be diagonalized easily, using the standard
976: techniques~\cite{Landau}. Besides, the loop counting method
977: can be trivially extended to the cases with antiperiodic
978: or mixed boundary conditions discussed in
979: Sec.~\ref{subsec:anti}. It is necessary only to mention that
980: each loop gets an additional factor $-1$ when it winds round
981: the torus with antiperiodic boundary conditions.
982: We consider the partition functions
983: $Z_{pp} \equiv Z$, $Z_{aa}$, $Z_{ap}$, $Z_{pa}$.
984: In this notation the first index refers to the horizontal
985: or $x$ axis, and the second one -- to the vertical or
986: $y$ axis of a lattice illustrated in Fig.~\ref{lattice}a;
987: $p$ means periodic and $a$ -- antiperiodic boundary conditions.
988: As explained above, the standard methods leads to the
989: following exact expressions:
990: \begin{eqnarray}
991: Z_{pp} &=& \left( Q_1+Q_2+Q_3-Q_0 \right)/ \, 2 \nonumber \\
992: Z_{ap} &=& \left( Q_0+Q_1+Q_3-Q_2 \right)/ \, 2 \nonumber \\
993: Z_{pa} &=& \left( Q_0+Q_1+Q_2-Q_3 \right)/ \, 2 \label{eq:zz} \\
994: Z_{aa} &=& \left( Q_0+Q_2+Q_3-Q_1 \right)/ \, 2 \nonumber
995: \end{eqnarray}
996: where $Q_0$ is the partition function represented by the sum of
997: the closed loops on the lattice,
998: as consistent with the loop counting method in~\cite{Landau},
999: whereas $Q_1$, $Q_2$, and $Q_3$
1000: are modified sums with additional factors
1001: $\exp(\Delta x \cdot i \pi/N + \Delta y \cdot i \pi/L)$,
1002: $\exp(\Delta x \cdot i \pi/N)$, and
1003: $\exp(\Delta y \cdot i \pi/L)$, respectively,
1004: related to each change of coordinate $x$ by $\Delta x = \pm 1$,
1005: or coordinate $y$ by $\Delta y = \pm 1$ when making a loop.
1006: The standard manipulations~\cite{Landau} yield
1007: \begin{eqnarray}
1008: &&Q_i = 2^{NL} \prod\limits_{q_x, \, q_y} \left[ \cosh^2 (2 \beta)
1009: -\sinh(2 \beta) \right. \\
1010: &&\left. \times \left( \cos \left[ q_x+
1011: \left( \delta_{i,1}+\delta_{i,2} \right) \frac{\pi}{N} \right]
1012: + \cos \left[ q_y+ \left( \delta_{i,1}+\delta_{i,3} \right)
1013: \frac{\pi}{L} \right] \right) \right]^{1/2} \nonumber \;,
1014: \label{eq:qi}
1015: \end{eqnarray}
1016: where the wave vectors $q_x=(2 \pi/N) \cdot n$ and
1017: $q_y=(2 \pi/L) \cdot \ell $ run over all the values
1018: corresponding to $n=0, 1, 2, \ldots , N-1$
1019: and $\ell=0, 1, 2, \ldots , L-1$.
1020: In the case of the periodic boundary conditions,
1021: each loop of $Q_0$ has the sign $(-1)^{m+ab+a+b}$~\cite{Bednorz},
1022: where $m$ is the number of intersections, $a$ is
1023: the number of windings around the torus in $x$ direction, and
1024: $b$ -- in $y$ direction. The correct result for $Z_{pp}$
1025: is obtained if each of the loops has the sign $(-1)^m$.
1026: In all other cases, similar relations
1027: are found easily, taking into account the above defined
1028: additional factors. Eqs.~(\ref{eq:zz}) are then obtained
1029: by finding such a linear combination of quantities $Q_i$ which ensures
1030: the correct weight for each kind of loops.
1031:
1032: All our tests provided a perfect agreement between the
1033: obtained values of the Greens functions $G(r)$
1034: (a comparison between straightforward calculations and
1035: our algorithms), as well as between partition
1036: functions for different boundary conditions
1037: (a comparison between our algorithms and Eq.~(\ref{eq:zz})).
1038: The relative discrepancies were extremely small (e.~g., $10^{-15}$),
1039: obviously, due to the purely numerical inaccuracy.
1040:
1041: We have used the double--precision FORTRAN programs.
1042: The main source of the inaccuracy in our
1043: calculations is the accumulation of numerical errors
1044: during the summation of long sequences of numbers, i.~e.,
1045: during the sumation over all the nonequivalent configurations
1046: of the first row of spins. To eliminate the error for
1047: the largest lattice $L=20$, we have split the summation in several
1048: parts in such a way that a relatively small part,
1049: including only the first 10~000 configurations from the total number
1050: of 52~487 nonequivalent ones, gives the main contribution
1051: to $Z$ and $Z'$.
1052: The same trick with splitting in two approximately
1053: equal parts
1054: %(the first $15~000$ configurations, giving about $90 \%$
1055: %of the total contribution, and the rest $12~595$ configurations)
1056: has been used at $L=19$, as well.
1057: By comparing the summation results with different
1058: splitings, we have concluded that a systematical error in
1059: $G(r)$ at $L=20$ could reach the value about $3 \cdot 10^{-15}$.
1060: The calculations at $L=18$ and $19$ have been performed with
1061: approximately the same accuracy.
1062: The systematical errors in subsequent $G(r)$ values tend to
1063: compensate in the final result for $\omega(L)$. The resulting
1064: numerical errors in Fig.~\ref{fig:om} are about $0.02$ or $0.03$,
1065: i.~e., approximately within the symbol size.
1066:
1067:
1068: \section{Analysis of the partition function zeros
1069: in 3D Ising model} \label{sec:zeros}
1070:
1071: In this section we discuss the recent MC results~\cite{ADH}
1072: for the complex zeros of the partition function of the
1073: three--dimensional Ising model. Namely, if the coupling $\beta$
1074: is a complex number, then the partition sum has zeros at
1075: certain complex values of $\beta$ or $u= e^{-\beta}$.
1076: The nearest to the real positive axis values $\beta_1^0$ and
1077: $u_1^0$ are of special interest. Neglecting the second--order
1078: corrections, $u_1^0$ behaves like
1079: \begin{equation}
1080: u_1^0 = u_c + A\, L^{-1/\nu} +B\, L^{-(1/\nu)-\omega}
1081: \end{equation}
1082: at large $L$, where $u_c=e^{-\beta_c}$ is the critical value
1083: of $u$, $A$ and $B$ are complex constants, and $\omega$ is the
1084: correction--to--scaling exponent. According to the known
1085: solution given in~\cite{Landau,Brout}, the
1086: partition function zeros correspond to complex values of
1087: $\, \sinh (2 \beta) \,$ located on a unit circle
1088: in the case of 2D Ising model, so that $A$ is purely imaginar.
1089: This solution, however, is only asymptotically exact
1090: at $L \to \infty$. Nevertheless, based on an analysis of the exact
1091: expression Eq.~(\ref{eq:zz}) we conclude that the statement
1092: $Re \, A=0$ is
1093: correct. This fact is obvious in the case of Brascamp--Kunz boundary
1094: conditions~\cite{JK,JK1}. The latter
1095: means that the critical behavior of real and imaginary
1096: parts of $u_1^0 - u_c$ essentially differ from each other,
1097: i.~e., $Re \left( u_1^0 -u_c \right) \propto L^{-(1/\nu) -\omega}$
1098: and $Im \left( u_1^0 \right) \propto L^{-1/\nu}$
1099: (where, in this case of $d=2$, $\nu=\omega=1$) at $L \to \infty$.
1100: The MC data of~\cite{ADH}, in fact, provide a good evidence that
1101: the same is true in three dimensions.
1102:
1103: Based on MC data for the partition function zeros in 3D Ising model,
1104: the authors of Ref.~\cite{ADH} have searched the way how to confirm the
1105: already known estimates for $\nu$. Their treatment, however, is
1106: rather doubtful. First, let us mention that, in contradiction to
1107: the definition in the paper, $u_1^0$ values
1108: listed in Tab.~I of~\cite{ADH} are not equal to $e^{-\beta_1^0}$
1109: (they look like $e^{-4\beta_1^0}$).
1110: Second, the fit to a theoretical ansatz for $\mid u_1^0(L) - u_c \mid$,
1111: Eq.~(6) in~\cite{ADH}, is unsatisfactory. This ansatz contains a
1112: mysterious parameter $a_3$. If we compare Eqs.~(5) and (6)
1113: in~\cite{ADH}, then we see immediately that
1114: $a_3 \equiv (1/\nu)+\omega$. At the same time, the obtained estimate
1115: for $a_3$, i.~e. $a_3 =4.861(84)$, is completely inconsistent with
1116: the values of $(1/\nu)+\omega$, about $2.34$, which follow from
1117: authors own considerations. Our prediction, consistent with
1118: the correction--to--scaling analysis in Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}
1119: (and with $\ell=4$ in~(\ref{sec:crex}) to coincide with the known
1120: exact result at $d=2$), is $\nu=2/3$ and $\omega=1/2$, i.~e.,
1121: $(1/\nu)+\omega=2$.
1122:
1123: To obtain a more complete picture, we have considered separately
1124: the real part and the imaginary part of $u_1^0-u_c$. We have calculated
1125: $u_1^0$ from $\beta_1^0$ data listed in Tab.~I of~\cite{ADH} and
1126: have estimated the effective critical exponents $y_{eff}'(L)$
1127: and $y_{eff}''(L)$, separately
1128: for $Re \left( u_1^0-u_c \right)$ and $Im \left( u_1^0 \right)$,
1129: by fitting these quantities to an ansatz $const \cdot L^{-y_{eff}'}$
1130: and $const \cdot L^{-y_{eff}''}$, respectively,
1131: at sizes $L$ and $L/2$. The value of $u_c$ consitent with
1132: the estimation of the critical coupling in~\cite{HV},
1133: $\beta_c \simeq 0.2216545$, has been used.
1134: The results are shown in Fig.~\ref{zeros}.
1135: \begin{figure}
1136: \centerline{\psfig{figure=6.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1137: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1138: \caption{\small Effective critical exponents for the real (empty circles)
1139: and the imaginary (solid circles) part of complex
1140: partition--function--zeros of 3D Ising model depending on
1141: $L^{-1/2}$, where $L$ is the linear size of the system.
1142: Solid lines show the linear least--squares fits.
1143: The asymptotic values from our theory are indicated by horizontal
1144: dashed lines, whereas those of the RG theory -- by
1145: dot--dot--dashed lines. A selfconsistent extrapolation within
1146: the RG theory corresponds to the tiny dashed line.}
1147: \label{zeros}
1148: \end{figure}
1149: As we see, $y_{eff}'$ (empty circles) claims to increase
1150: above $y_{eff}''$ (solid circles) when $L$ increases.
1151: This is a good numerical evidence that, like in the two--dimensional
1152: case, the asymptotic values are\linebreak
1153: $y'=\lim_{L \to \infty} y_{eff}'(L)=(1/\nu)+\omega$ and
1154: $y''=\lim_{L \to \infty} y_{eff}''(L)=1/\nu$.
1155: According to our theory, the actual plots in the $L^{-1/2}$ scale
1156: are linear at $L \to \infty$, as consistent with the expansion
1157: in terms of $L^{-\omega}$. The linear least--squares fits are shown
1158: by solid lines. The zero intercepts $1.552$ and $1.899$ are in approximate
1159: agreement with our theoretical values $1.5$ and $2$ indicated by horizontal
1160: dashed lines. The relatively small discrepancy, presumably, is due
1161: to the extrapolation errors and inaccuracy in the simulated data.
1162: The result for $y'$ is affected by the error in $\beta_c$ value.
1163: However, this effect is negligibly small.
1164: Assuming a less accurate value $\beta_c=0.221659$, consistent with
1165: the estimations in~\cite{SA,FL}, we obtain $y'=1.914$.
1166:
1167:
1168: The behavior of $y_{eff}'$ is rather inconsistent with
1169: the RG predictions. On the one hand, $y_{eff}'$ claims to increase
1170: above $y_{eff}''$ and also well above the RG value
1171: of $1/\nu$ (the lower dod--dot--dashed line at $1.586$), and, on the other
1172: hand, the extrapolation yields $y'$ value ($1.899$) which is remarkably
1173: smaller than
1174: $(1/\nu)+\omega \simeq 2.385$ (the upper dot--dot--dashed line)
1175: predicted by the RG theory. For selfconsistency,
1176: we should use the linear extrapolation in the scale of $L^{-\omega}$ with
1177: $\omega=0.799$ (the RG value). However, this extrapolation
1178: (tiny dashed line in Fig.~\ref{zeros}), yielding
1179: $y' \simeq 1.747$, does not solve the problem
1180: in favour of the RG theory.
1181:
1182: The data points of $y_{eff}'$ look (and are expected to be) less accurate
1183: than those of $y_{eff}''$, since $Re \left( u_1^0-u_c \right)$
1184: has a very small value.
1185: The $y_{eff}''$ data do not look scattered, therefore they allow a refined
1186: analysis with account for nonlinear corrections. To obtain stable results,
1187: we have included the data for smaller lattice sizes $L=3$ and $L=4$ given
1188: in~\cite{ABV}. In principle, we can use rather arbitrary analytical function
1189: $\phi (\beta)$ to evaluate the effective critical exponent
1190: $$y_{eff}''(L) = \ln \left[ Im \, \phi \left(\beta_1^0(L/2) \right)
1191: / Im \, \phi \left( \beta_1^0(L) \right) \right] / \ln 2$$
1192: and estimate its asymptotic value $y''$. For an optimal choice, however,
1193: $y_{eff}''(L)$ vs $L^{-\omega}$ plot should be as far as possible linear
1194: to minimize the extrapolation error. In this aspect, our choice
1195: $\phi = \exp(-\beta)$ is preferable to $\phi = \exp(-4 \beta)$ used
1196: in~\cite{ABV}. We have tested also another possibility, i.~e.
1197: $\phi = \sinh( 2 \beta)$, which appears as a natural parameter in
1198: the case of 2D Ising model.
1199: The shape of the $y_{eff}''(L)$ plot can be satisfactory
1200: well approximated by a third--order, but not by a second--order,
1201: polinomial in $L^{-1/2}$, as it can be well seen when
1202: analyzing the local slope of this curve. The
1203: corresponding four parameter least--squares fits are shown in
1204: Fig.~\ref{zeroref}.
1205: \begin{figure}
1206: \centerline{\psfig{figure=7.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1207: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1208: \caption{\small Effective critical exponent $y_{eff}''(L)$
1209: for the imaginary part of the complex partition--function--zeros
1210: as a function of $L^{-1/2}$, where $L$ is the linear size of the system.
1211: The empty circles correspond to $\phi = \exp(-\beta)$, whereas the solid
1212: circles to $\phi = \sinh( 2 \beta)$. The corresponding least--squares
1213: fits $y_{eff}''(L)= 1.4734 + 1.3321 L^{-1/2} - 4.7587 L^{-1}
1214: + 6.8894 L^{-3/2}$ and
1215: $y_{eff}''(L)= 1.5184 + 0.7271 L^{-1/2} - 2.0309 L^{-1}
1216: + 3.3095 L^{-3/2}$ are shown by long--dashed line
1217: and solid line, respectively.
1218: Our asymptotic value $y''=1/\nu=1.5$ is indicated by horizontal
1219: dashed line, whereas that of the RG theory ($1.586$)
1220: -- by dot--dot--dashed line.}
1221: \label{zeroref}
1222: \end{figure}
1223: They yield $y'' \simeq 1.473$ in the case of
1224: $\phi = \exp(-\beta)$ (long--dashed line) and
1225: $y'' \simeq 1.518$ at $\phi = \sinh(2 \beta)$ (solid line).
1226: It is evident from Fig.~\ref{zeroref} that
1227: in the latter case we have slightly better linearity of the fit,
1228: therefore $1/\nu \simeq 1.518$ is our best estimate of
1229: the critical exponent $1/\nu$ from the actual MC data.
1230: Thus, while the row estimation provided the value
1231: $y''=1/\nu \simeq 1.552$ which is closer to the RG
1232: prediction $1/\nu \simeq 1.586$ (horizontal dot--dot--dashed line),
1233: the refined analysis reveals remarkably better agreement with our
1234: (exact) value $1/\nu=1.5$ (horizontal dashed line).
1235:
1236:
1237: \section{$\lambda \varphi^4$ model and its crossover to Ising model}
1238:
1239: Here we discuss a $\varphi^4$ model
1240: on a three--dimensional cubic lattice. The Hamiltonian of this model,
1241: further called $\lambda \varphi^4$ model, is given by
1242: \begin{equation} \label{eq:H}
1243: H/T= \sum\limits_{\bf x} \left\{ -2 \kappa \sum\limits_{\mu}
1244: \varphi_{\bf x} \varphi_{{\bf x}+\hat \mu} + \varphi_{\bf x}^2
1245: + \lambda \left( \varphi_{\bf x}^2 -1 \right)^2 \right\} \;,
1246: \end{equation}
1247: where the summation runs over all lattice sites,
1248: $T$ is the temperature, \linebreak $\varphi_{\bf x} \in \, ]-\infty; +\infty[$
1249: is the scalar order parameter at the site with coordinate ${\bf x}$,
1250: $\hat \mu$ is a unit vector in the $\mu$--th direction,
1251: $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ are coupling constants.
1252: Obviously, the standard 3D Ising model is recovered in the limit
1253: $\lambda \to \infty$ where $\varphi_{\bf x}^2$ fluctuations
1254: are suppressed so that, for a relevant configuration,
1255: $\varphi_{\bf x}^2 \simeq 1$ or $\varphi_{\bf x} \simeq \pm 1$ holds.
1256: The MC data for the Binder cumulant in this
1257: $\lambda \varphi^4$ model have been interpreted in accordance with
1258: the $\epsilon$--expansion and a perfect agreement
1259: with the conventional RG values of critical exponents has
1260: been reported in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
1261: According to the definition in~\cite{Hasenbusch}, the Binder cumulant
1262: $U$ is given by
1263: \begin{equation} \label{eq:U}
1264: U= \frac{\langle m^4 \rangle}{ \langle m^2 \rangle^2} \;,
1265: \end{equation}
1266: where
1267: $m=L^{-3} \sum_{\bf x} \varphi_{\bf x}$ is the magnetization
1268: and $L$ is the linear size of the system.
1269: Based on the $\epsilon$--expansion, it has been
1270: suggested in~\cite{Hasenbusch} that, in the thermodynamic limit
1271: $L \to \infty$, the value of the Binder cumulant
1272: at the critical point $\kappa=\kappa_c(\lambda)$ and, equally, at
1273: a fixed ratio $Z_a/Z_p=0.5425$ (the precise value is not important)
1274: of partition functions with periodic
1275: and antiperiodic boundary conditions is a universal constant $U^*$
1276: independent on $\lambda$. We suppose that the latter statement
1277: is true, but not due to the $\epsilon$--expansion.
1278: It is a consequence of some general argument of the RG theory:
1279: on the one hand, $U$ is invariant under the RG transformation and,
1280: on the other hand, an unique fixed point (not
1281: necessarily the Wilson--Fisher fixed point) exists in the case of
1282: an infinite system, so that $U \equiv U^*$ holds at $L \to \infty$
1283: and $\kappa = \kappa_c(\lambda)$ where $U^*$ is the fixed--point
1284: value of $U$. The above conclusion remains true if we allow
1285: that the fixed point is defined not uniquely in the sense that it
1286: contains some irrelevant degree(s) of freedom
1287: (like $c^*$ and $\Lambda$ in the perturbative RG theory discussed
1288: in Sec.~2 of~\cite{K1}) not changing $U$.
1289: The numerical results in~\cite{HV} confirm the idea that
1290: $\lim_{L \to \infty} U(L) = U^*$ holds at criticality, where $U^*$
1291: is a universal constant independent on the specific microscopic
1292: structure of the Hamiltonian.
1293:
1294: \section{Estimation of the correction exponent $\omega$}
1295: \label{sec:omega}
1296:
1297: Based on the idea that $U^*$ is constant for a given universality
1298: class, here we estimate the correction--to--scaling exponent $\omega$.
1299: According to Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}, corrections to finite--size scaling
1300: for the magnetization of the actual 3D Ising and
1301: $\lambda \varphi^4$ models are represented by an expansion in terms
1302: of $L^{-\omega}$ where $\omega=1/2$. One expects that the
1303: magnetization (Binder) cumulant~(\ref{eq:U}) has the same singular
1304: structure. Since $\lim_{L \to \infty} U(L,\lambda) \equiv U^*$ holds at
1305: a fixed ratio $Z_a/Z_p$, a suitable ansatz for estimation
1306: of $\omega$ is~\cite{Hasenbusch}
1307: \begin{equation} \label{omef}
1308: U(L,\lambda_1)-U(L,\lambda_2) \simeq const \cdot L^{-\omega}
1309: \hspace{4ex} \mbox{at} \hspace{2ex} Z_a/Z_p=0.5425 \;,
1310: \end{equation}
1311: which is valid for any two different nonzero values $\lambda_1$
1312: and $\lambda_2$ of the coupling constant $\lambda$.
1313: The data for $\Delta U(L)= U(L,0.8)-U(L,1.5)$ can be read
1314: from Fig.~1 in~\cite{Hasenbusch} (after a proper magnification)
1315: without an essential loss of the numerical accuracy, i.~e., within
1316: the shown error bars. Doing so, we have evaluated the effective exponent
1317: \begin{equation}
1318: \omega_{eff}(L) = \ln \left[ \Delta U(L/2)/ \Delta U(L) \right] / \ln 2 \;,
1319: \end{equation}
1320: i.~e., $\omega_{eff}(12) \simeq 0.899$,
1321: $\omega_{eff}(16) \simeq 0.855$, and $\omega_{eff}(24) \simeq 0.775$.
1322: These values are shown in Fig.~\ref{om} by crosses.
1323: \begin{figure}
1324: \centerline{\psfig{figure=8.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1325: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1326: \caption{\small Effective correction--to--scaling exponent
1327: $\omega_{eff}(L)$ in the $O(n)$--symmetric $\lambda \varphi^4$ model
1328: with $n=1$ (empty circles and crosses)
1329: %and $n=3$ (triangles),
1330: and $O(2)$--symmetric $dd-XY$ model (solid circles) depending on the
1331: system size $L$. The linear least--squares fits give row estimates
1332: of the asymptotic $\omega$ values $0.547$ and $0.573$,
1333: at $n=1$ and $2$, respectively.
1334: The corresponding theoretical values of the GFD theory
1335: $1/2$ and $5/9$
1336: (used in the $L^{-\omega}$ scale of the horizontal axis)
1337: are indicated by arrows.
1338: The dot--dot--dashed line shows the value $0.845(10)$ proposed
1339: in~\cite{Hasenbusch} for the $3D$ Ising universality class ($n=1$).}
1340: \label{om}
1341: \end{figure}
1342: Such an estimation,
1343: however, can be remarkably influenced by the random scattering
1344: of the simulated data points, particularly, at larger sizes where
1345: $\Delta U(L)$ becomes small. This effect can be diminished if the
1346: values of $\Delta U(L)$ are read from a suitable smoothened curve.
1347: We have found that $\Delta U(L)$ within $L \in [7;24]$
1348: can be well approximated by a second--order polinomial in $L^{-1/2}$.
1349: The corresponding refined values $\omega_{eff}(16) \simeq 0.8573$ and
1350: $\omega_{eff}(24) \simeq 0.7956$ read from this curve
1351: are depicted in Fig.~\ref{om} by empty circles.
1352: These values are similar to those obtained by a direct calculation
1353: from the original data points (crosses).
1354:
1355: In such a way, we see from Fig.~\ref{om}
1356: that the effective exponent $\omega_{eff}(L)$ decreases
1357: remarkably with increasing of $L$. According to GFD theory,
1358: $\omega_{eff}(L)$ is a linear function of $L^{-1/2}$ at $L \to \infty$,
1359: as consistent with the expansion in terms of $L^{-\omega}$ where
1360: $\omega=0.5$. More data points,
1361: including larger sizes $L$, are necessary for a reliable
1362: estimation of the asymptotic exponent
1363: $\omega =\lim_{L \to \infty} \omega_{eff}(L)$. Nevertheless, already
1364: a row linear extrapolation in the scale of $L^{-1/2}$
1365: with the existing data points yields the result $\omega \approx 0.547$
1366: which is reasonably close to the exact value $0.5$ (horizontal dashed
1367: line in Fig.~\ref{om}) found within
1368: the GFD theory. The corresponding least--squares fit with circles
1369: (at $L=24,16$) and cross (at $L=12$) is shown in Fig.~\ref{om} by
1370: a straight solid line. It is evident from Fig.~\ref{om} that the final
1371: result $\omega=0.845(10)$ (horizontal dot--dot--dashed line) reported
1372: in~\cite{Hasenbusch} represents some average
1373: effective exponent for the interval $L \in [6;24]$.
1374: It has been claimed in~\cite{Hasenbusch} that the estimates for
1375: $\omega$ (cf. Tab.~2 in~\cite{Hasenbusch}) are rather stable
1376: with respect to a variation of $L_{min}$, where $L_{min}$ is the
1377: minimal lattice size used in the fit. Unfortunately, the analysis
1378: has been made in an obscure fashion, i.~e., giving no original
1379: data, so that we cannot check the correctness of this claim.
1380: Besides, the estimates in Tab.~2 of~\cite{Hasenbusch} has been made
1381: by using an ansatz
1382: \begin{equation} \label{omef1}
1383: U(L,\lambda) = U^* + c_1(\lambda) L^{-\omega}
1384: \hspace{4ex} \mbox{at} \hspace{2ex} Z_a/Z_p=0.5425 \;,
1385: \end{equation}
1386: which is worse than~(\ref{omef}). Namely, (\ref{omef}) and (\ref{omef1})
1387: are approximations of the same order, but~(\ref{omef1})
1388: contains an additional parameter $U^*$ which is not known precisely.
1389: The results of an analysis with the ansatz~(\ref{omef}), reflected
1390: in Tab.~5 of~\cite{Hasenbusch}, are not convincing, since
1391: only very small values of $L_{min}$ (up to $L_{min}=6$) have been
1392: considered.
1393:
1394: In any case, we prefer to rely on that information we can
1395: check, and it shows that the claim
1396: in~\cite{Hasenbusch} that $\omega=0.845(10)$ holds with
1397: $\pm 0.01$ accuracy cannot be correct,
1398: since $\omega_{eff}(L)$ is varied in the first decimal place.
1399:
1400: We have made a similar estimation of $\omega$ for the dynamically
1401: diluted $O(2)$--symmetric ($n=2$) $XY$ ($dd-XY$) model simulated
1402: in~\cite{CHPRV} ($n=2$). In the case of
1403: the $dd-XY$ model, parameter $D$ (cf.~Eq.(6) in~\cite{CHPRV})
1404: plays the role of $\lambda$ in~(\ref{omef}). The data for the Binder
1405: cumulant in Fig.~1 of~\cite{CHPRV} look rather accurate, i.~e., not
1406: scattered. This enables us to estimate $\omega_{eff}$ just from
1407: the data at $D=1.03$ and $D=\infty$ ($XY$ model).
1408: The resulting values of $\omega_{eff}$
1409: are depicted in Fig.~\ref{om} by solid circles. The scale of
1410: $L^{-\omega}$ is used, where $\omega=5/9$ is our
1411: theoretical value of the correction--to--scaling exponent at $n=2$
1412: consistent with the general hypothesis proposed in Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}.
1413: As we see, the solid circles can be well located on a smooth line
1414: which, however, is remarkably curved at smaller sizes. Due to the
1415: latter reason, we have used only the last three points (the largest
1416: sizes) for the linear fit (solid line) resulting in an
1417: estimate $\omega \approx 0.573$ which comes close to our theoretical
1418: value $\omega=5/9=0.555 \ldots$
1419:
1420: In summary, the extrapolated $\omega$ values (Fig.~\ref{om})
1421: in both cases $n=1$ and $2$ are reasonably close to our theoretical
1422: values $1/2$ and $5/9$ indicated by arrows. Only a small
1423: systematic deviation is observed. This, likely, is due to the error of
1424: linear extrapolation: the $\omega_{eff}(L)$ plots have a
1425: tendency to curve down slightly.
1426: The conventional (RG) estimate $\omega \approx 0.8$ more or less
1427: corresponds to effective exponents for currently simulated finite
1428: system sizes, but not to the asymptotic exponents.
1429:
1430:
1431: \section{Fitting the susceptibility data at criticality}
1432: \label{sec:fit}
1433:
1434: In this section we discuss some fits of MC data at criticality.
1435: According to the finite--size scaling theory, the susceptibility
1436: $\chi$ near the critical point is represented by an expansion
1437: \begin{equation} \label{chi}
1438: \chi= L^{2-\eta} \left( g_0(L/\xi)
1439: + \sum\limits_{l \ge 1} L^{-\omega_l} g_l(L/\xi) \right) \;,
1440: \end{equation}
1441: where $g_l(L/\xi)$ are the scaling functions, $\xi$ is the correlation
1442: length of an infinite system, $\eta$ is the critical exponent
1443: related to the $k^{-2+\eta}$ divergence of the correlation function
1444: in the wave vector space at criticality, and $\omega_l$ are
1445: correction--to--scaling exponents, $\omega_1 \equiv \omega$
1446: being the leading correction exponent. The correlation length
1447: diverges like $\xi \propto t^{-\nu}$ at $t \to 0$, where
1448: $t=1-\beta/\beta_c$ is the reduced temperature. Thus,
1449: for large $L$, in close vicinity of the critical point
1450: where $tL^{1/\nu} \ll 1$ holds Eq.~(\ref{chi}) can be
1451: written as
1452: \begin{equation} \label{chi1}
1453: \chi= a \, L^{2-\eta} \left( 1 + \sum\limits_{l \ge 1} b_l
1454: L^{-\omega_l} + \delta(t,L) \right) \;,
1455: \end{equation}
1456: where $a=g_0(0)$ and $b_l=g_l(0)/g_0(0)$ are the amplitudes, and
1457: $\delta(t,L)$ is a correction term which takes into account the
1458: deviation from criticality. In the first approximation it reads
1459: \begin{equation} \label{delta}
1460: \delta(t,L) \simeq c \cdot tL^{1/\nu} \;,
1461: \end{equation}
1462: where $c$ is a constant.
1463:
1464: We start our analysis with the standard 3D Ising model with the Hamiltonian
1465: \begin{equation}
1466: H/T= -\beta \sum\limits_{\langle i j \rangle} \sigma_i \sigma_j \;.
1467: \end{equation}
1468: The critical point of this model has been found
1469: in~\cite{HV} to be $\beta_c \simeq 0.2216545$.
1470: We have made our own tests with the data of~\cite{HV}, and have obtained
1471: the same value within the uncertainty of $\pm 10^{-7}$.
1472: From the maximal values of the derivative
1473: $\partial \ln \langle m^2 \rangle / \partial \beta \equiv
1474: \partial \ln \chi / \partial \beta$ evaluated in~\cite{FL} we conclude
1475: that the shift of $\beta$ by $10^{-7}$ produces
1476: the variation of $\ln \chi$ at $L=96$ near
1477: $\beta=\beta_c$, which does not exceed $4.7 \cdot 10^{-4}$ in magnitude.
1478: The latter means that, with a good enough accuracy, we may assume
1479: that $\beta_c$ is just $0.2216545$ when fitting the susceptibility
1480: data at criticality within $L \in [4;128]$. Here we mean the MC data
1481: given in Tab.~25 of~\cite{HV}.
1482: We have made and compared several fits of these data to
1483: ansatz~(\ref{chi1}) with $\delta(t,L)=0$
1484: (more precisely, to the corresponding formula
1485: for $\ln \chi$) for two different sets of the critical
1486: exponents, i.~e., our (GFD) and that proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
1487: The fits made with our exponents systematically
1488: improve relative to those made with the exponents of~\cite{Hasenbusch},
1489: as the system sizes grow and the approximation order increases.
1490: The necessity to include several correction terms is dictated
1491: by the fact that corrections to scaling are rather strong.
1492: According to the least--squares criterion, the fit with our exponents
1493: $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega_l=l/2$ becomes better than that provided
1494: by the more conventional exponents $\eta=0.0358(4)$, $\omega_1=0.845(1)$,
1495: $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$, and $\omega_3=2$~\cite{Hasenbusch} starting with
1496: $L_{min}=28$ (i.~e., $L \in [L_{min};128]$), if two correction terms
1497: ($l=1,2$) are included.
1498: In the case of three correction terms it occurs already at $L_{min}=11$.
1499: The four--parameter ($a$, $b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$) fits to MC data (empty
1500: circles) within $L \in [14;128]$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{chifi}.
1501: \begin{figure}
1502: \centerline{\psfig{figure=9.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1503: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1504: \caption{\small The fits of $\ln \left( \chi/L^2 \right)$ data
1505: at criticality (ansatz~(\ref{chi1})) shifted by a constant $c$.
1506: Solid circles represent the MC data for 3D Ising model~\cite{HV} at
1507: $\beta=0.2216545$ ($c=0$).
1508: The fits with our (GFD) exponents
1509: ($\ln a=1.065289, b_1=-2.72056, b_2=8.18636, b_3=-10.49614$)
1510: and with those of~\cite{Hasenbusch,Justin1}
1511: ($\ln a=0.430933, b_1=0.05850, b_2=-7.74767, b_3=12.42890$)
1512: are shown by solid and tiny--dashed lines, respectively.
1513: The empty boxes are MC data for 3--component 3D $XY$ model~\cite{NhM},
1514: shifted by $c=0.85$.}
1515: \label{chifi}
1516: \end{figure}
1517: The fit with our exponents (upper solid line) is relatively better at
1518: larger sizes. However, both fits (upper solid and dashed lines) look,
1519: in fact, quite similar, so that we cannot make unambiguous conclusions
1520: herefrom.
1521:
1522: For comparison, we have shown in Fig.~\ref{chifi} also the MC data
1523: for 3D $XY$ model~\cite{NhM}, where the order parameter is 3--component
1524: vector with only two interacting components.
1525: As we see, the actual MC data (empty boxes) at
1526: $\beta_c$ evaluated approximately $\beta_c \simeq 0.6444$~\cite{NhM} are
1527: rather scattered and, therefore, unsuitable for a refined analysis.
1528: Nevertheless, this is a typical situation where authors of such data make
1529: a very "accurate" and "convincing" estimation $\gamma/\nu=1.9696(37)$
1530: or $\eta=0.0304(37)$ making a simple linear fit. However, the refined
1531: analysis given above has shown that even in the case of 3D Ising model,
1532: where the data are incompatibly more accurate, it is not so easy to
1533: distinguish between $\eta=0.0358$ and $\eta=1/8$. Moreover, a refined
1534: analysis prefer the second value which is much larger than those
1535: usually provided by linear fits at typical system syzes $L \le 48$.
1536: This is particularly well seen in Fig.~\ref{eteff}, where
1537: the effective critical exponent $\eta_{eff}(L)$ of the
1538: 3D Ising model, estimated via the linear fit within $[L;2L]$, is depicted
1539: by solid circles.
1540: \begin{figure}
1541: \centerline{\psfig{figure=10.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1542: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1543: \caption{\small The effective critical exponent $\eta_{eff}(L)$ (solid
1544: circles) obtained by fitting the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model
1545: at criticality ($\beta=0.2216545$)~\cite{HV} within the interval $[L;2L]$.
1546: The least--squares approximations obtained by fitting the $\eta_{eff}(L)$
1547: data within $[L_{min};64]$ to a third--order polinomial in $L^{-1/2}$ are
1548: shown by dashed ($L_{min}=9$), solid ($L_{min}=10$), and tiny--dashed
1549: ($L_{min}=12$) lines. The asymptotic value $\eta=1/8$ of the GFD
1550: theory is indicated by a horizontal dashed line. The dot--dot--dashed
1551: line represents the $\eta$ value $0.0358$ proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.}
1552: \label{eteff}
1553: \end{figure}
1554: As we see, $\eta_{eff}(L)$ tends to increase well above
1555: the conventional value $0.0358$ (horizontal dot--dot--dashed line).
1556: The shape of the $\eta_{eff}(L)$ plot is satisfactory well reproduced
1557: by a third--order polinomial in the actual scale of $L^{-1/2}$.
1558: Three such kind of least--squares approximations
1559: (at $L_{min}=9,10,12$) are shown in Fig.~\ref{eteff}.
1560: These fits do not provide very accurate
1561: and stable asymptotic values of $\eta$. Nevertheless, they are
1562: more or less in agreement with our theoretical prediction
1563: $\eta=1/8$ (horizontal dashed line). Besides, the values of $\eta_{eff}$
1564: are affected by the error in $\beta_c$ (about $10^{-7}$) only slightly,
1565: i.~e., by an amount not exceeding $0.001$.
1566:
1567:
1568: \section{A test for 3D Ising model with "improved" action}
1569: \label{imp}
1570:
1571: Here we discuss some estimations of the critical exponents
1572: from the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model, reported in~\cite{HV},
1573: with the so called "improved" action (i.~e., $H/T$).
1574: One of the problems with the standard 3D Ising model is that corrections
1575: to scaling are strong. It has been proposed in~\cite{HV} to solve
1576: this problem by considering a modified (spin--1) Ising model
1577: with the Hamiltonian
1578: \begin{equation} \label{Hsp1}
1579: H/T= - \beta \sum\limits_{\langle i j \rangle}
1580: \sigma_i \sigma_j + D \sum\limits_{i} \sigma_i^2 \;,
1581: \end{equation}
1582: where the spin $\sigma_i$ takes the values $0, \pm 1$,
1583: with two coupling constants $\beta$ and $D$ adjusted in such a way that
1584: the leading correction to
1585: finite--size scaling vanishes for all relevant physical quantities
1586: (magnetization cumulant, energy per site, susceptibility, etc.) and their
1587: derivatives. Moreover, according to the claims in~\cite{HV}
1588: (see the conclusions in~\cite{HV}), the ratios of
1589: the leading and subleading corrections are universal, so that not only
1590: the leading but all (!) corrections should vanish simultaneously.
1591:
1592: We have checked the correctness of these claims as described below.
1593: We have fitted the corresponding to~(\ref{chi1}) expression for
1594: $\ln \chi$ to the susceptibility data of the "improved" 3D Ising
1595: model~(\ref{Hsp1}) with $(\beta,D)=(0.383245, 0.624235)$
1596: (this is an approximation of the critical point) given
1597: in~\cite{HV} (Tab.~26). By fixing the exponents, the least--squares
1598: fit within $L \in [L_{min};56]$ (here $L=56$ is the maximal size
1599: available in Tab.~26 of~\cite{HV}), including the leading and the
1600: subleading correction to scaling, provides the effective amplitudes
1601: $a$, $b_1$, and $b_2$ depending on $L_{min}$.
1602: We have made a test with the critical exponents $\eta=0.0358(4)$,
1603: $\omega=0.845(10)$, and $\nu=0.6296(3)$ proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
1604: These values are close to those of the usual RG expansions~\cite{Justin1},
1605: but, as claimed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}, they are more accurate.
1606: According to~\cite{Hasenbusch}, the asymptotic expansion contains corrections
1607: like $L^{-n \omega}$ and $L^{-2n}$, where $n=1, 2, 3, \ldots$
1608: Thus we have $\omega_1=\omega$ and $\omega_2=2 \omega$.
1609: The resulting amplitudes $10 b_1(L_{min})$ and $b_2(L_{min})$
1610: are shown in Fig.~\ref{b} by circles and rhombs, respectively.
1611: \begin{figure}
1612: \centerline{\psfig{figure=11.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1613: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1614: \caption{\small The effective amplitudes $10 b_1$ (circles) and
1615: $b_2$ (rhombs) in~(\ref{chi1}) estimated at fixed exponents
1616: $\eta=0.0358$, $\omega_1=0.845$, $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$, and
1617: $\nu=0.6296$ by fitting the MC data within $L \in [L_{min};56]$.
1618: Filled symbols correspond to $\delta(t,L)=0$, empty
1619: symbols -- to $\delta(t,L)=10^{-6} L^{1/\nu}$. The effective
1620: amplitudes $b_1$ and $b_2$ estimated with the critical
1621: exponents of our GFD theory ($\eta=1/8$, $\omega_l=l/2$) at
1622: $\delta(t,L)=0$ are shown by "x" and "+", respectively.
1623: Lines represent the least--squares approximations by a fourth--order
1624: polinomial in $L$.}
1625: \label{b}
1626: \end{figure}
1627: We have depicted by filled symbols
1628: the results of the fitting with $\delta(t,L)=0$, assuming that the
1629: critical coupling $\beta_c=0.383245$ has been estimated in~\cite{Hasenbusch}
1630: with a high enough (6 digit) accuracy. The data points quite
1631: well fit smooth (tiny dashed) lines within $L_{min} \in [4;20]$, which
1632: means that the statistical errors are reasonably small.
1633: If the exponents used in the fit are correct and corrections to
1634: scaling are small indeed, then the convergence of the effective amplitudes
1635: to some small values is expected with increasing of $L_{min}$.
1636: However, as we see from Fig.~\ref{b}, the effective amplitudes tend
1637: to increase in magnitude acceleratedly as $L_{min}$ exceeds $14$.
1638: A small inaccuracy in $\beta_c$ value can be compensated by
1639: the term $\delta(t,L) \simeq c^* L^{1/\nu}$ in~(\ref{chi1}),
1640: where $c^*=ct$ (cf.~Eq.~(\ref{delta})). The results of fitting with
1641: $c^*=10^{-6}$ are shown in Fig.~\ref{b} by empty symbols. As we see,
1642: the expected inaccuracy in $\beta_c$ of order $10^{-6}$ does not
1643: change the qualitative picture. The increase of the effective
1644: amplitudes indicates that either the exponents are false, or
1645: the asymptotic amplitudes are not small (or both). This is our
1646: argument that the claims in~\cite{HV} about very
1647: accurate critical exponents, extracted from the 3D Ising model
1648: with "improved" action, are incorrect.
1649:
1650: For comparison, we have shown in Fig.~\ref{b} also the
1651: effective amplitudes $b_1(L_{min})$ and $b_2(L_{min})$
1652: (by "x" and "+", respectively) estimated with the critical exponents of
1653: our GFD theory (Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}) ($\eta=1/8$, $\omega_l=l/2$), assuming
1654: $\delta(t,L)=0$.
1655: The effective amplitudes converge to some values with increasing of
1656: $L_{min}$. These, however, are not the true asymptotic values, since
1657: the maximal size of the system has been eliminated to $L=56$.
1658:
1659:
1660: \section{A test for the standard 3D Ising model}
1661: \label{stan}
1662:
1663: A test with the effective amplitudes, as in Sec.~\ref{imp},
1664: appears to be more sensitive tool as compared to the fits discussed
1665: in Sec.~\ref{sec:fit}.
1666: Here we consider the standard 3D Ising model.
1667: We have fitted all data points in Tab.~25 of~\cite{HV}
1668: within the interval of sizes $[L;8L]$
1669: to the theoretical expression
1670: for $\ln \chi$ (consistent with~(\ref{chi1}))
1671: to evaluate the effective amplitudes $a$ and $b_l$ with $l=1, 2, 3$
1672: depending on $L$. Exceptionally in the case if all the
1673: involved exponents are correct (exact) each effective amplitude can converge
1674: to a certain nonzero asymptotic value at $L \to \infty$. In other words,
1675: if one tries to compensate the inconsistency in the exponent by
1676: choosing appropriate amplitude, then the amplitude
1677: tends either to zero or infinity at $L \to \infty$.
1678:
1679: We have shown in Fig.~\ref{m} the effective amplitudes $\ln a(L)$ and
1680: $b_l(L)$ in the case of our critical exponents $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega_l=l/2$.
1681: \begin{figure}
1682: \centerline{\psfig{figure=12.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1683: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1684: \caption{\small The effective amplitudes in Eq.~(\ref{chi1})
1685: $100 \, (\ln a(L) -1)$ (triangles), $5 b_1(L)$ (circles), $b_2(L)$ (squares),
1686: and $b_3(L)$ (rhombs)
1687: evaluated by fitting the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model at
1688: criticality within the interval of sizes $[L;8L]$ with the critical
1689: exponents $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega_l=l/2$ of the GFD theory.
1690: }
1691: \label{m}
1692: \end{figure}
1693: As we expected, the effective amplitudes
1694: converge to some nonzero values with increasing of $L$.
1695: This is a good numerical evidence that our critical exponets are true.
1696: The case with the exponents of~\cite{Hasenbusch} $\eta=0.0358(4)$,
1697: $\omega_1=0.845(10)$, $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$, and $\omega_3=2$
1698: is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{v}.
1699: \begin{figure}
1700: \centerline{\psfig{figure=13.eps,width=11cm,height=8.5cm}}
1701: \vspace{-9.5ex}
1702: \caption{\small The effective amplitudes in Eq.~(\ref{chi1})
1703: evaluated by fitting the susceptibility data of 3D Ising model at
1704: criticality within the interval of sizes $[L;8L]$ with the critical
1705: exponents $\eta=0.0358$, $\omega_1=0.845$, $\omega_2=2 \omega_1$,
1706: and $\omega_3=2$ proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}.
1707: Solid symbols show the four--parameter fit:
1708: $50 b_1(L)$ (circles), $b_2(L)$ (squares), and $b_3(L)$ (rhombs);
1709: empty symbols show the three--parameter fit: $100 b_1(L)$ (circles) and
1710: $27 b_2(L)$ (squares); crosses represent
1711: the amplitude of the two--parameter fit, i.~e., quantity
1712: $190 \, (b_l(L)+0.34)$.
1713: %The tiny--dashed lines are guides to eye.
1714: }
1715: \label{v}
1716: \end{figure}
1717: As we expected, the effective amplitudes of our four--parameter fit
1718: (solid symbols) tend to diverge with increasing of $L$,
1719: which shows that this set of critical exponents is false.
1720: One could object that, probably, the instability of the effective
1721: amplitudes is due to small errors in MC data. However,
1722: the amplitudes $b_1(L)$ and $b_2(L)$ of the more stable three--parameter
1723: fit ($l=1,2$ in~(\ref{chi1})) behave in a similar way (see empty symbols in
1724: Fig.~\ref{v}). Moreover, the amplitude $b_1(L)$ of the two--parameter fit,
1725: shown by crosses, increases almost
1726: linearly at large enough $L$ instead of the expected (in a case
1727: of correct exponents) saturation like
1728: $b_1(L) \simeq b_1 + const \cdot L^{-\omega}$.
1729: As regards the convergence in Fig.~\ref{m} of the effective amplitudes
1730: at $L \to \infty$, it is possible only if both conditions
1731: are fulfilled, i.~e., the exponents are correct and the MC data
1732: are accurate enough to ensure stable results. Thus, in any case,
1733: the analysis in Fig.~\ref{m} provides rather convincing evidence
1734: that our exponents are the true ones, which by itself rules
1735: out the possibility that those proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}
1736: could be correct.
1737: The results in Figs.~\ref{m} and~\ref{v} are affected insignificantly
1738: by a small inaccuracy of about $10^{-7}$ in the estimated $\beta_c$ value.
1739:
1740:
1741: \section{Remarks about other numerical results}
1742:
1743: There exists a large number of numerical results in the published
1744: literature not discussed here and in~\cite{K1}.
1745: A detailed review of these results is given in~\cite{PV}.
1746: The cited there papers report results which disagree with
1747: the values of the critical exponents we have proposed.
1748: However, as regards the pure Monte Carlo study, we are quite confident
1749: that, just like in the actually discussed case of 3D Ising model,
1750: the increase of system syzes and/or use of higher--level
1751: approximations will lead to the conclusion that fits with our
1752: exponents are better than those with the conventional (RG) exponents.
1753: Particularly, a careful analysis of the effective exponents made
1754: in Secs.~\ref{sec:zeros}, \ref{sec:omega}, and~\ref{sec:fit}
1755: already has shown that the effective exponents deviate from
1756: the values predicted by the perturbative RG theory and converge
1757: more or less to those of the GFD theory at $L \to \infty$.
1758: Together with the analysis of the experiment with superfluid
1759: $^4 He$~\cite{K1}, we have presented totally $5$ independent evidences of
1760: such a behavior. Besides, an important prediction of exceptionally
1761: our theory regarding the corrections to scaling is confirmed by the
1762: exact-algorithm transfer matrix calculations in Sec.~\ref{sec:result}.
1763:
1764: There exists some background for the conventional claims in the published
1765: literature that all the usual methods give consistent results which appear
1766: to be in a good agreement with the predictions of the perturbative
1767: RG theory. The perturbation expansions of the RG theory, as well
1768: as the techniques of high-- and low--temperature series expansion are
1769: merely not rigorous extrapolation schemes which work not too close to
1770: criticality.
1771: As a result, these methods produce some pseudo or effective critical
1772: exponents which, however, often provide a good approximation
1773: just for the range of temperatures not too close to $T_c$ (critical
1774: temperature) where these methods make sense and, therefore, agree with
1775: each other.
1776: According to the finite--size scaling theory, $t L^{1/\nu}$
1777: is a relevant scaling argument, so that not too small values of the
1778: reduced temperature $t$
1779: are related to not too large sizes $L \sim t^{-\nu}$. Therefore, one
1780: can understand that the MC results for finite systems
1781: often can be well matched to the conventional critical exponents
1782: proposed by high temperature (HT) and RG expansions.
1783: If, however, the level
1784: of MC analysis (i.~e., the level of approximations used) is increased,
1785: then it turns out that the "conventional" critical exponents are
1786: not valid anymore, as it has been demonstrated in the current paper.
1787: It is because the "conventional" exponents are not
1788: the asymptotic exponents. Correct values of the asymptotic exponents
1789: have been found in~\cite{K1} considering suitable theoretical limits
1790: instead of formal expansions in terms of $\ln k$ (at criticality, where
1791: $k$ is the wave vector magnitude) or $\ln t$ (approaching criticality)
1792: which are meaningless at $k \to 0$ and $t \to 0$.
1793: These formal expansions lie in the basis of the RG expansions for
1794: the critical exponents.
1795: One argue that $\ln k$ diverges weakly, therefore
1796: the expansions in powers of $\ln k$ can be treated.
1797: This is a nonsense: any term like $k^{-\lambda}$ with $\lambda<0$
1798: can be formally expanded in terms of $\ln k$, but therefore it
1799: does not become less divergent. Moreover, not only the powers
1800: of $k$ but almost any function can be expanded in terms
1801: of $\ln k$, therefore it is impossible to dechiper what
1802: is hiden behind such formal expansions in reality.
1803: This is a serious problem, since even an exponentially
1804: small correction (at $k \to 0$) can give a nonvanishing contribution
1805: to such a formal expansion (see examples in Sec.~2 of~\cite{K1}).
1806: The problem is not only formal:
1807: it has been proven in~\cite{K1} that
1808: the assumption that the $\epsilon$--expansion works and provides
1809: correct results at $k \to 0$ leads to an obvious contradiction in
1810: mathematics (cf.~Sec.~2 in~\cite{K1}). This fact alone cannot be
1811: compensated even by an infinite number of numerical evidences
1812: supporting the "conventional" critical exponents coming from the
1813: RG expansions.
1814:
1815: Our arguments, based on the current numerical analysis, are the
1816: following. First, the calculations by exact algorithms in
1817: Sec.~\ref{sec:result} confirm our theoretical prediction, but not
1818: that of the perturbative RG theory. Second, we have proposed here a
1819: very sensitive method (i.~e., a study of effective amplitudes) which
1820: allows to test the consistency of a given set of
1821: critical exponents with the MC data including several (in our case up to $3$)
1822: corrections to scaling. We have applied this method to one of the recent
1823: and most accurate numerical data for the susceptibility in
1824: 3D Ising model, and have got a confirmation that our critical
1825: exponents are true. It would be not correct to doubt our results based on
1826: less sensitive methods and lower--level approximations.
1827:
1828: We prefer to rely just on the data of pure MC simulations becose of the
1829: following reasons. The so called Monte Carlo RG (MCRG) method is not
1830: free of assumptions related to approximate renormalization.
1831: We would like only to mention that the MCRG study in~\cite{GT} of 3D Ising
1832: systems of the largest (to our knowledge) available in
1833: literature sizes, i.~e. up to $L=256$,
1834: has not revealed an excellent agreement with the usual predictions of
1835: the perturbative RG. In particular, an estimate $\omega \approx 0.7$
1836: has been obtained~\cite{GT} which is smaller than the usual (perturbative)
1837: RG value $\approx 0.8$, but still is larger than the exact value $0.5$
1838: predicted by the GFD theory.
1839: The high--temperature series cannot give more
1840: precise results than those extracted from the recent most accurate MC
1841: data, including the actual data of~\cite{HV}, since these series
1842: diverge approaching the critical point. One approximates the divergent
1843: series by a ratio of two divergent series (Pade approximation),
1844: but it is never proven that such a method converges to the exact result.
1845: Besides, the comparison to our calculations in 2D Ising model
1846: via exact algorithms (Sec.~\ref{sec:correc}) shows that the HT series analysis
1847: leads to misleading conclusions regarding such fine effects
1848: as corrections to scaling. These effects are relevant for 3D models.
1849: It is interesting to compare the MC and HT estimates of the
1850: critical point for the standard 3D Ising model, i.~e.,
1851: $\beta_c \simeq 0.2216545$ (MC)~\cite{HV} and
1852: $\beta_c = 0.221659 +0.000002/-0.000005$ (HT)~\cite{SA}.
1853: It is clear that the MC value is more accurate:
1854: if we look in~\cite{HV}, where the estimation procedure is
1855: well illustrated, we can see that $\beta_c$ is definitely
1856: smaller than $0.221659$, and the error seems to be much
1857: smaller than the difference between both estimates $0.0000045$.
1858: As we have mentioned already, our independent tests suggest
1859: that the error of the actual MC value is about $10^{-7}$.
1860:
1861:
1862: \section{Conclusions}
1863:
1864: Summarizing the present work we conclude the following:
1865: \begin{enumerate}
1866: \item
1867: Critical exponents and corrections to scaling for different physical
1868: quantities have been discussed in framework of our~\cite{K1} recently
1869: developed GFD (grouping of Feynman diagrams)
1870: theory (Sec.~\ref{sec:crex}).
1871:
1872: \item
1873: Calculation of the two--point correlation function
1874: of 2D Ising model at the critical point has been made
1875: numerically by exact transfer matrix algorithms
1876: (Secs.~\ref{sec:algorithm} and~\ref{sec:correc}).
1877: The results for finite lattices including up to
1878: 800 spins have shown the existence of a nontrivial
1879: correction to scaling with a very small amplitude and
1880: exponent about $1/4$ in agreement with the prediction
1881: of our GFD theory. No correction with the conventionally
1882: predicted exponent $4/3$ has been detected.
1883:
1884: \item
1885: The recently published Monte Carlo data for several
1886: three--dimensional lattice models have been reanalyzed.
1887: This analysis in Secs.~\ref{sec:zeros} to~\ref{sec:fit}
1888: has shown that the effective critical exponents deviate from
1889: the values predicted by the perturbative RG theory and converge
1890: towards those of the GFD theory at $L \to \infty$.
1891: The same behavior has been observed in the experiment with
1892: superfluid $^4 He$ discussed in~\cite{K1}. Totally, these are
1893: five independent evidences of such a behavior, suggesting that the
1894: above examples are not occasional or exceptional,
1895: but reflect a general rule.
1896:
1897: \item
1898: Different sets of critical exponents (one provided by GFD theory, another
1899: proposed in~\cite{Hasenbusch}) predicted for the 3D Ising model
1900: have been tested by analyzing the effective amplitudes
1901: (Sec.~\ref{imp} and~\ref{stan}).
1902: While the usual fits of the susceptibility data do not allow to show
1903: convincingly which of the discussed here sets of the critical exponents
1904: is better, this method strongly suggests that the conventional
1905: critical exponents $\eta=0.0358(4)$ and $\omega=0.845(10)$~\cite{Hasenbusch}
1906: are false, whereas our (GFD) values $\eta=1/8$ and $\omega=1/2$ are true.
1907: \end{enumerate}
1908:
1909:
1910: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1911:
1912: This work including numerical calculations of the 2D Ising model
1913: have been performed during my stay at the Graduiertenkolleg
1914: \textit{Stark korrelierte
1915: Vielteilchensysteme} of the Physics Department, Rostock University,
1916: Germany.
1917:
1918:
1919: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1920:
1921: \bibitem{Onsager} L.~Onsager, Phys.~Rev. {\bf 65} (1944) 117
1922: \bibitem{Sornette} D. Sornette, Critical Phenomena in
1923: Natural Sciences, Springer, Berlin, 2000
1924: \bibitem{BDT} J. G. Brankov, D. M. Danchev, N. S. Tonchev,
1925: Theory of Critical Phenomena in Finite--Size Systems: Scaling
1926: and Quantum Effects, World Scientific, 2000
1927: \bibitem{Baxter} Rodney J.~Baxter, Exactly Solved Models in
1928: Statistical Mechanics, Academic Press, London, 1989
1929: \bibitem{K1} J.~Kaupu\v{z}s, Ann.~Phys.~(Leipzig) {\bf 10} (2001) 299
1930: \bibitem{IS} N. Ito, M. Suzuki, Progress of Theoretical
1931: Physics, {\bf 77} (1987) 1391
1932: \bibitem{SM} N. Schultka, E. Manousakis, Phys. Rev. B
1933: {\bf 52} (1995) 7258
1934: \bibitem{GA} L. S. Goldner, G. Ahlers, Phys. Rev. B
1935: {\bf 45} (1992) 13129
1936: \bibitem{ADH} N. A. Alves, J. R. Drugowich, U. H. E. Hansmann,
1937: J.~Phys.~A {\bf 33} (2000) 7489
1938: \bibitem{Wilson} K. G. Wilson, M. E. Fisher,
1939: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 28} (1972) 240
1940: \bibitem{Ma} Shang--Keng Ma, Modern Theory of Critical
1941: Phenomena, W.A.~Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1976
1942: \bibitem{Justin} J.~Zinn--Justin, Quantum Field Theory and
1943: Critical Phenomena, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996
1944: \bibitem{Chamati} H. Chamati, Eur.~Phys.~J.~B {\bf 24} (2001) 241
1945: \bibitem{Janke} C. Holm, W. Janke, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 48} (1993) 936
1946: \bibitem{Ballesteros} H. G. Ballesteros, L. A. Fernandez,
1947: V. Martin--Mayor, A. M. Sudupe, Phys. Lett.~B {\bf 387} (1996) 125
1948: \bibitem{Huang} K. Huang, Statistical Mechanics, John Wiley \& Sons,
1949: New York 1963
1950: \bibitem{BF} M. Barma, M. Fisher, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 53}
1951: (1984) 1935
1952: \bibitem{Addendum} B. Nickel, J. Phys. A {\bf 33} (2000) 1693
1953: \bibitem{Bednorz} A. Bednorz, J. Phys. A, {\bf 33} (2000) 5457
1954: \bibitem{Landau} L. Landau, E. Lifshitz,
1955: Course of Theoretical Physics, Part 5: Statistical Physics, \S 141,
1956: Moscow, 1964
1957: \bibitem{Brout} R. Brout, Phase Transitions, New York, 1965
1958: \bibitem{JK}
1959: W. Janke, R. Kenna, Phys.~Rev.~B {\bf 65} (2002) 064110
1960: \bibitem{JK1} W. Janke, R. Kenna, Nucl.~Phys.~B (Proc. suppl.)
1961: {\bf 106--107} (2002) 929
1962: \bibitem{ABV} N. A. Alves, B. A. Berg, R. Villanova, Phys. Rev.~B
1963: {\bf 41} (1990) 383
1964: \bibitem{Hasenbusch} M.~Hasenbusch, J.~Phys.~A {\bf 32}
1965: (1999) 4851
1966: \bibitem{CHPRV} E.~Campostrini, M.~Hasenbusch, A.~Pelissetto,
1967: P.~Rossi, E.~Vicary, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 63} (2001) 214503
1968: \bibitem{HV} M.~Hasenbusch, K.~Pinn, S.~Vinti,
1969: Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 59} (1999) 11\,471
1970: \bibitem{Justin1} R.~Guida, J.~Zinn--Justin, J.~Phys.~A
1971: {\bf 31} (1998) 8103
1972: \bibitem{NhM} K.~Nho, E.~Manousakis, Phys. Rev.~B {\bf 59}
1973: (1999) 11575
1974: \bibitem{FL} A. M. Ferrenberg, D. P. Landau, Phys. Rev.~B
1975: {\bf 44} (1991) 5081
1976: \bibitem{PV} A. Pinossetti, E. Vicari, e--print cond--mat/0012164
1977: \bibitem{SA} Z. Salman, J. Adler, Int. J. Modern Physics~C
1978: {\bf 9} (1998) 195
1979: \bibitem{GT} R. Gupta, P. Tamayo, Int. J. Mod. Phys.~C {\bf 7}
1980: (1996) 305
1981: \end{thebibliography}
1982:
1983: \end{document}
1984:
1985: